MSFD biodiversity advice manual - Europa

REGIONAL COORDINATION

Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

OSPAR Commission

OSPARs MSFD Advice Manual on Biodiversity

Approaches to determining good environmental status setting of environmental targets and selecting indicators for Marine Strategy Framework Directive descriptors 1

2 4 and 6

Version 32 (5 March 2012) Prepared by the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (ICG COBAM) under the responsibility of the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee (BDC)

Disclaimer

This Advice Manual is a living document and reflects the state of discussion at expert level at the time of its drafting The manual is of a non-binding nature and aims at facilitating coordination between the EU Member States that are parties to the OSPAR Convention with regard to determining GES and establishing targets and associated indicators for MSFD Descriptors 1 2 4 and 6 It does not prejudice the ongoing decision-making processes in Contracting Parties and their final conclusions on reporting under Articles 8 9 and 10 of the MSFD in 2012 The manual will be further developed by ICG-COBAM to support ongoing implementation of the Directive

Draft Advice Manual on Biodiversity (MSFD Descriptors 1 2 4 and 6)

Version 35 ( March 2012) 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ADVICE MANUAL 7

PART I PRINCIPLES 7

PART II APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO BIODIVERSITY 10 1 BACKGROUND 22

11 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ADVICE MANUAL 22

12 POLICY CONTEXT 23 121 Requirements of the Directive 23 122 Requirements for determining GES and establishing environmental targets and indicators 23 123 The role of OSPAR 24 124 Time table for implementation 25

13 KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE ADVICE MANUAL 25

14 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT 26 PART I PRINCIPLES 27 2 INTRODUCTION 27

21 WHAT IS GES 27

22 TALKING A COMMON LANGUAGE 27

23 OVERVIEW OF THE BIODIVERSITY DESCRIPTORS 28

24 RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER DESCRIPTORS 29

25 CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TARGETS FOR ALL DESCRIPTORS 30

26 ELEMENTS FOR DETERMINING GES 30 261 Assessment areas and components 30 262 Determining GES and target-setting 30 263 Characteristics of an effective indicator 32 264 Setting a baseline 32

3 APPROACHES TO DETERMINING GES 35

31 UNDERSTANDING GES FOR BIODIVERSITY 35 311 GES in a dynamic ecosystem and changing climate 36

32 MAKING USE OF EXISTING BIODIVERSITY TARGETS AND INDICATORS 37 321 OSPAR ecological quality objectives 38

33 APPROACHES FOR SETTING TARGETS AND BASELINES FOR NEW INDICATORS 38 331 Baseline-setting approaches 38 332 Target-setting approaches 42 333 Coordinated selection of species and habitats 45

OSPAR Commission 2011

4

34 APPROACHES TO SETTING TARGETS FOR PRESSURES 45

35 ASSESSMENT SCALES 46 PART II APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO BIODIVERSITY 49 4 HABITATS 50

41 INTRODUCTION 50 411 Seabed habitats 50 412 Water column habitats 50 413 Assessment scales and ecological assessment areas 50 414 Proposal for ecological assessment areas in the Greater North Sea 51 415 Further development 53

42 SETTING BASELINES 54 421 Setting baselines for seabed habitats 54 422 Setting baselines for pelagic habitats 55

43 SETTING STATE TARGETS 55 431 Setting state targets for benthic habitats 55 432 Setting state targets for pelagic habitats 56

44 EXISTING EUROPEAN INDICATORS AND STATE TARGETS 56 441 For benthic habitats 56 442 For pelagic habitats 58 443 Other advice relating to pelagic habitats 59

45 POTENTIAL COMMON INDICATORS FOR HABITATS 59 5 SPECIES 68

51 ASSESSMENT SCALES AND SPECIES 68 511 Further development 69

52 MARINE MAMMALS AND REPTILES 69 521 Cetaceans 69 522 Seals 70 523 Reptiles 71 524 Potential common indicators for marine mammals and reptiles 72

53 BIRDS 80 531 Criteria from Commission Decision 80 532 Potential common indicators for birds 81

54 FISH AND CEPHALOPODS 90 541 Criteria from Commission Decision 90



542 Pressure indicators 91 543 Potential common indicators for fish 92

6 DESCRIPTOR 2 ndash NON INDIGENOUS SPECIES 97

61 INTRODUCTION 97

62 DEFINITIONS FOR DESCRIPTOR 2 97

63 ISSUES WITH SELECTING TARGETS 98

64 EXISTING TARGETS AND INDICATORS 98 641 International objectives 98 642 EU-level objectives 98

65 BASELINE FOR TARGETS 99

66 CRITERIA FROM THE COMMISSION DECISION 99

67 RISK-BASED APPROACH 100

68 TARGET-SETTING DECISION TREE 100

69 POTENTIAL COMMON INDICATORS FOR NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES 101 7 CURRENT STATUS OF ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR THE BIODIVERSITY DESCRIPTORS 106

71 D1 BIODIVERSITY 106

72 D2 NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES 106

73 D3 COMMERCIAL FISH AND SHELLFISH 106

74 D4 FOOD WEBS 107

75 D6 SEA-FLOOR INTEGRITY 107

76 POTENTIAL COMMON INDICATORS FOR FOOD WEBS 107 8 ANNEXES 115

81 LESSONS LEARNED AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE OSPARMSFD WORKSHOP ON APPROACHES TO DETERMINING GES FOR BIODIVERSITY HELD IN UTRECHT THE NETHERLANDS 23-24 NOVEMBER 2010 115

82 TERMINOLOGY 117

83 ECOQOS AND LINKS TO GES CRITERIA 122

84 PRESSURE DEFINITIONS 124

85 CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENT SCALE SPECIFIC TO EACH BIODIVERSITY DESCRIPTOR 134 851 Biodiversity and scale 134 852 Non-indigenous species and scale 134 853 Food webs and scale 135 854 Sea-floor integrity and scale 135

86 BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS SPECIES AND HABITAT LISTS 136


6

87 SYNTHESIS TABLES TO ILLUSTRATE THE MOST SUITABLE TARGET-SETTING AND BASELINE-SETTING METHODS FOR EACH GES INDICATOR OR INDICATOR CLASS BY SPECIES FUNCTIONAL GROUP 141



Executive summary Purpose and scope of the Advice Manual This Advice Manual covers the biodiversity-related MSFD1 Descriptors 1 (biodiversity) 2 (non-indigenous species) 4 (food webs) and 6 (sea-floor integrity) It aims at providing a common ground for coordinated and consistent determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) and related identification and establishment of indicators and targets within the OSPAR area

This Manual provides general guidance for development of the products that are needed for the 2012 deadlines of the MSFD It contains leading principles and methods for defining indicators targets and baselines As a part of the coordination process by OSPAR an analysis of coherence in nationally identified indicators and targets and proposals for potential common indicators have been added to the previous version (31 May 2011)

Compared to the OSPAR Advice Manuals on Descriptors 5 (eutrophication) and 8 (contamination) targets and indicators for biodiversity are generally less well-developed and the set of existing common indicators is limited and insufficient to cover the requirements of the Directive Therefore the need for further development of biodiversity indicators beyond 2012 can be expected together with further work within OSPAR on a coordinated assessment and monitoring framework for biodiversity

The Manual does not directly address Descriptor 3 (commercial fish and shell-fish) but recommends there be some consistency in approach and potential integration with the biodiversity elements dealt with here

The Manual contains two parts Part I lsquoPrinciplesrsquo explores the concepts behind the text of the Directive particularly as many of these concepts are new and require innovation in biodiversity assessment and monitoring Part II lsquoApplication of principles to biodiversityrsquo explains how these principles can be applied to species and habitats as biodiversity components which can be important for monitoring and assessment of these MSFD Descriptors

Part I Principles Talking a common language

Discussions in OSPAR and EU working groups revealed different interpretations of the terminology of the Directive and related guidance documents which was hampering progress OSPARrsquos Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (ICG-COBAM) therefore developed a proposal of definitions and interpretations focusing on MSFD Articles 8 9 and 10 to help Contracting Parties talk in a common language presented as Annex 82 The proposal also includes criteria for selecting effective state indicators This proposal has subsequently been used to develop common understanding at EU level [to be harmonised with the terminology in the EU Common Understanding paper]2

Relationships to other Descriptors

Descriptors 1 4 and 6 are often considered as lsquostatersquo Descriptors which are influenced often in a cumulative manner by many of the other Descriptors that focus on pressures and impacts To ensure consistency between assessments of these Descriptors there needs to be cooperation between those working on pressures and impacts and those working on assessing the state of marine ecosystems and its biodiversity In addition information on the intensity distribution and extent of the impact on biodiversity obtained from assessments of

1 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 200856EC)

2 Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) and Establishment of Environmental Targets (Art 8 9 amp 10 MSFD) - endorsed by the Marine Directors December 2011 as a living document


8

other Descriptors is needed in a form that can be directly linked to the biodiversity components and their scale of assessment (eg pressure maps)

GES in a dynamic ecosystem and changing climate

Dynamic ecosystems and changing climates will lead to continuous changes in species composition and their relative abundance within communities and ecosystems in any given part of a region These changes are beyond the control of normal management measures and so setting GES in a manner which is too specific in terms of the species composition and population sizes to be achieved will not allow for such natural or climate-induced changes It is therefore preferable to consider good status at the slightly broader level of functional groups of species and functional habitats within which a suitable degree of fluctuation in species composition and relative abundance can be anticipated

Making use of existing biodiversity targets and indicators

The Directive requires Member States to take into account existing assessment frameworks established in other EU Directives and Conventions Examples include indicators and targets under the Water Framework Directive WFD) and the Birds and Habitats Directives the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure (COMPP)3 the OSPAR List of Threatened andor Declining Species and Habitats OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) and objectives under the UNEP Convention on Migratory Species as well as the Agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic North-East Atlantic Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS) the Agreement on the conservation of cetaceans of the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) and the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation (TWSC) Targets and indicators used in the above frameworks have been tested in practice and provide a common ground for coordinated implementation of the MSFD The Advice Manual identifies for which criteria under Descriptors 1 4 and 6 these existing indicators are applicable Their application in the context of overall biodiversity needs for the MSFD may however require further consideration to ensure compatibility with the particular requirements and aims of the Directive for example consistency in how a species or habitat is judged as being in good status

Approaches for setting new state-based targets and indicators

The methodological guidance for development of comparable baselines and targets for lsquostatersquo indicators describes three approaches for both baseline and target-setting (Box 1) The applicability of these methods depends on availability of past and present data and the history of human intervention with specific species and habitats In many cases expert judgement is needed to compensate for incomplete data As improvements in state are most likely to be achieved through reductions in human-induced impacts the setting of targets with a focus on specific impacts (linked to pressures) as well as more generally on biodiversity state is recommended These approaches are used in Part II of the Manual Target and baseline methods recommended for species differ from those recommended for habitats because at species level there is a requirement for more precise knowledge (on range and population size) than for communities (within habitat types) and such data are generally not available or only for recent decades

3 Common Procedure for the Identification of the Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area (OSPAR Agreement 2005-3)



Coordinated selection of species and habitats

Biodiversity indicators can often be applied to different species These may be chosen on the basis of their sensitivity to human pressures or represent a functional group or provide a habitat for other species Coordinated selection of species will improve comparability of assessment and will facilitate cooperation in monitoring between countries sharing a (sub) region

Approaches for setting targets for pressures

The Manual includes initial guidance on target-setting for pressures These targets should whenever possible be linked to impacts on biodiversity components taking account of the geographic scale of both pressures and ecosystem components Moreover the targets should form a clear basis for drawing up management measures These measures could focus on reducing the spatial and temporal footprint andor the intensity of the pressure The aim of the Directive to achieve GES within a framework of sustainable use of the marine environment and the often limited understanding of quantitative interactions between pressures and ecosystem state needs to be taken into account

Assessment scales

The choice of assessment scale is very important because different scales may lead to markedly different outcomes for the assessment of quality status of a particular ecosystem component The scale used should be meaningful from both a biodiversity perspective and a management perspective It should therefore relate to the scales at which ecosystem components (populations species communities) occur and the scales at which management measures are effective Use of lsquonested scalesrsquo could enable assessment of local impacts whilst enabling aggregation of assessment results to larger areas As a start and in accordance with the MSFD the

Box 1

Approaches to setting baselines are

Method A (reference statenegligible impacts) - Baselines can be set as a state in which the anthropogenic influences on species and habitats are considered to be negligible

Method B (past state) - Baselines can be set as a state in the past based on a time-series dataset for a specific species or habitat selecting the period in the dataset which is considered to reflect least impacted conditions

Method C (current state) - The date of introduction of an environmental directive or policy can be used as the baseline state As this may represent an already deteriorated state of biodiversity the associated target should typically include an expression of no further deterioration from this state

Approaches to target-setting are

Method 1 Directional or trend-based targets

i direction and rate of change

ii direction of change only

Method 2 Targets set as the baseline

Method 3 Target set as a deviation from a baseline


10

use of the Marine Region and its Sub-regions should form the basis for defining assessment areas for biodiversity components Certain aspects of biodiversity should be assessed at finer scales than the sub-region a proposal for assessment areas for habitats in the North Sea based on hydrological and oceanographic characteristics of the area is provided Assessment areas for more mobile species may be based on species or population distribution but further consideration is needed on the practical implementation of this approach (eg the practicalities of using multiple scales links to other aspects being assessed)

A priority risk-based approach is advised first of all focusing monitoring efforts on areas where pressures caused by human activities are highest andor ecosystem components are most vulnerable This necessitates a cross-check of vulnerable states and spatial extent frequency and intensity of pressures at relevant and compatible scales This is likely to be particularly useful for Descriptors 2 and 6 (and for seabed habitats under Descriptor 1)

Part II Application of principles to biodiversity This part of the advice is organised around six broadly-defined biodiversity components that are of relevance for one or more of the biodiversity Descriptors and subsequently grouped into sections on species and habitats It looks at the application of the principles for setting targets and indicators using the Commission Decision 2010447EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (Commission Decision on criteria and indicators) The advice can then be used to assess the individual biodiversity Descriptors (1 2 4 and 6)

Habitats

Although seabed habitats are very varied across the North-East Atlantic the identification of appropriate methods for baseline and target-setting is similar In addition to seabed habitats water column habitats have been considered

Assessment scale For benthic habitats it is advised to define assessment scales smaller than and nested within sub-regions This will enable identification of ecological changes within the same abiotic habitat and better accommodate links to management measures An example of assessment areas is given for the North Sea using the most relevant hydrological and oceanographic characteristics Pelagic habitats could be sub-divided in a first instance into coastal shelf and oceanic zones noting that boundaries could be dynamic

Baselines For benthic habitats Method A is considered the most appropriate given availability of reliable historical data or relatively unimpacted areas For pelagic habitats monitoring time series in some areas will provide sufficient data to apply Method B otherwise Method C is advised4 Both for benthic and pelagic habitats complementary use of expert judgements is recommended It is generally not considered possible to determine a state with negligible impact for pelagic habitats

State targets The preferred method for seabed habitats is method 3 The target level can be based on science (examples given in the text) or on policy aspirations For pelagic habitats method 3 is also preferred taking into account natural variation as a dynamic range around a desirable state or the current state

Existing indicators Taking into account the different objectives of the Habitats Directive (HD) OSPAR TWSC and WFD existing indicators and state targets partly address the indicators identified in the MSFD Commission Decision However the habitat types considered may not be the most appropriate for the MSFD Existing indicators for pelagic habitats only address their phytoplankton communities

4 OSPAR (2011) Report of the OSPARMSFD workshop on approaches to determining GES for biodiversity Utrecht November 2010

Biodiversity Series No553



Potential common indicators Indicators are available for benthic habitat distributional range and area and for benthic habitat condition Many of these apply to both Descriptor 1 and Descriptor 6 Because of different needs with regard to protection indicators and targets for listed habitats (HD OSPAR) are somewhat different from indicators for predominant habitats Further development is needed to better define metricsparameters Actual monitoring may not be sufficient in a number of cases Further consideration is needed for pelagic habitat indicators Potential common indicators are summarized in Tables 1a and 1b below

Species

Scale for wide-ranging and highly mobile species Assessment areas may be at sub-regional scales or larger scales for certain species (eg of cetacean) or finer than sub-region scales In order to define a relevant assessment area for a specific species a case by case approach based on specific natural population distribution is recommended However the defined area should be as far as is possible compatible (or nested) between species and habitats Scales used in existing assessments of mobile species can provide useful guidance for example the EcoQOs for harbour porpoise bycatch and for commercial fish stocks

State targets and baselines

Marine mammals - Taking into account limited data availability for cetaceans Method 1 is advised for target-setting while any of the approaches to set a baseline (Methods A B and C) could be applicable depending on data and the history of hunting Seals are generally easier to monitor than cetaceans Target-setting Method 1 and baseline-setting Method C are advised building on experience with EcoQOs Another possible approach depending on species could consist of modelling carrying capacity for common marine mammal species based on assumptions or measurements of parameters of life history and setting a target as a deviation from this total carrying capacity to allow for ldquosustainabilityrdquo (This method underpins the targets set for harbour porpoise bycatch by ASCOBANS and the OSPAR EcoQO) This advice applies to all relevant state indicators of the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators

Birds - Based on EcoQO experience method 3 is considered useful for target-setting while method B is appropriate for baseline-setting

Fish and cephalopods - Target-setting Method 1 or 2 is advised using a mixture of approaches for baseline-setting ( B and C5) In general the method of choice will depend on data availability and the history of fishing There is a close link between the biodiversity Descriptors 1 4 and 6 which are dealt with in this Manual and Descriptor 3 on commercial fish and shellfish stocks Fish and cephalopods cover protected species as well as commercially-exploited species Both categories come with their own baseline and target-setting methodology While baselines are well-defined for many of the commercially exploited fish stocks these are lacking for non-commercial bycatch species although they may be equally impacted by human pressures

The complementary use of expert judgement is recommended6 for mammals birds fish and cephalopods

Pressure targets

Ideally state and pressure targets should be used in combination If setting state targets or monitoring progress towards them is problematic pressure targets alone could be used to monitor achievement towards GES An example is reduction of pressures during crucial life-cycle periods eg prevention of visualnoise disturbance at seal haul-outpupping areas during relevant times of the year A common agreement exists about the potentiality of setting bycatch targets not only for mammals but for reptiles in some sub-regions For fish and cephalopods

5 OSPAR (2011) Report of the OSPARMSFD workshop on approaches to determining GES for biodiversity Utrecht November 2010 Biodiversity Series No553 6 OSPAR (2011) Report of the OSPARMSFD workshop on approaches to determining GES for biodiversity Utrecht November 2010 Biodiversity Series No553


12

targets for fishing mortality and discard rates are being used for commercial species and could be developed for non-commercial species as well

Potential common indicators In most cases species distributional range and pattern and species abundance or population size can be assessed with existing indicators However some further development of indicators baselines andor targets is required This applies to the three species groups (mammals birds and fish) More monitoring may be required in a number of cases There is some overlap between indicators for Descriptor 1 and Descriptor 4 There has not yet been sufficient consideration of indicators for cephalopods A summary of potential common indicators is in Tables 1a and 1b

With regard to mammal indicators for Descriptor 4 experts at the 2011 OSPAR workshop on MSFD Biodiversity Descriptors7 (WKBIOD) considered these unsuitable since the species under consideration are opportunistic feeders and will therefore not indicate structural changes at lower levels in the food web The present version of the Advice Manual follows this advice However since a number of EU Member States consider mammal indicators for Descriptor 4 ICG-COBAM advises that further discussion is required on this issue

Descriptor 2 ndash non-indigenous species (NIS)

Any targets or measures should be considered for relevance at the sub-regional (if not wider international) level For many parameters national controls may be ineffective if operated in isolation from other neighbouring countries due to the methods of introduction of NIS Targets could be trend-based (Method 1) and should be directed towards preventing further introductions and related to management measures to reduce their impacts Due to a lack of data on how NIS are introduced where they occur how abundant they are and a lack of understanding of the factors influencing their survival establishing baseline information for trend comparisons may be very difficult Pathwayvector management targets are likely to be the most effective means to prevent further introductions of NIS The present Manual proposes a target-setting decision tree to ensure a coordinated approach with this Descriptor

Potential common indicators proposals for indicators are available for trends in abundance occurrence and distribution of NIS There is agreement that the concepts behind the indicators are sound however more work is required to develop these further and build consensus Significant development would be required for monitoring No indicators have currently been proposed for the impact of invasive species Potential common indicators are in Tables 1a and 1b

Species and habitats lists

The Manual includes lists of species and habitats (Annex 86) which are structured according to the predominant habitat types and functional groups of species recommended for biodiversity assessment in the EU Commission Staff Working Paper8 These lists are intended as a common starting point for identification of more specific species and habitats which could be used for assessing GES within each sub-region Coordination of the selection process will facilitate effective and coordinated monitoring among neighbouring Member States The species lists started with those species that are already listed in other policy mechanisms and hence have a strong focus on rarethreateneddeclining species According to MSFD issues additional selection criteria (commonness trophic keystoneness etc) have been added to by ICG-COBAM to also include more species 7 OSPAR workshop on MSFD Biodiversity Descriptors comparison of targets and associated indicators hosted by the Netherlands and held

in Amsterdam 2-4 November 2011 8 European Commission (2011) Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011) 1255

httpwwwcccechomedgservsgsgvistaisgv2reporepocfminstitution=COMMampdoc_to_browse=SEC20111255



in order to represent the functional groups more accurately However these lists are actually more illustrative than operational and further work is needed for monitoring issues

Summary of potential common parametersmetrics for biodiversity descriptors

The current set of indicators is regarded as a menu of options to choose from preferrably in a coordinated manner It is a high level set with more detailed indicators (specific to different habitat types and regions) defined as needed to support more local assessments OSPAR has set up a procedure to further develop these indicators taking into account immediate (2012) and medium term (2014-2018) requirements of the MSFD

Two tables present the current state of play towards identification of common parameters and metrics of the indicators for biodiversity Descriptors giving a general impression on the status of monitoring and the level of consensus in ICG-COBAM with regard to the suitability of the proposed parameter The advice is based on an analysis of coherence in nationally identified indicators and targets carried out at WKBIOD Table 1a maps out the potential common parameters against each of the Commission Decision Indicators including highlighting gaps The details of the parameters are not provided in this table rather it presents a summary for each indicator of numbers of common parameters per ecosystem component Table 1b presents the thirty-three potential common parameters according to ecosystem component More detailed descriptions are available in Chapters 4 5 and 6

It should be noted that due to lack of knowledge andor expertise during the workshop the following gaps in the current potential common parameters and metrics were identified

bull Cephalopods

bull Reptiles

bull Pelagic habitats

Further work will be required to develop parameters for indicators under Descriptor 2 (Non indigenous species) and Descriptor 4 (food webs)


14

Table 1a Summary of potential common parametersmetrics for each of the Commission Decision Indicators

The numbers in parantheses (x) indicate the number of parametersmetrics available for each ecosystem component with further details found in the relevant chapter of this Advice Manual

Current Monitoring Green = Sufficient Orange = some but more required Red = none Black = not enough information

Level of consensus Green = high Orange = some Red = none Black = not enough information

Level of development Green = already operational Orange = some further development required Red = concept is sound but requires substantial development Black = not enough information

Descriptor 1

Criterion Indicator Parameter metrics available for Monitoring Level of consensus Level of development

11 Species distribution

111 Species distributional range

Birds (1) Mammals (2) Fish (1)

There is some monitoring being conducted but more would be required

There is high consensus on all 4 of the proposed parameters for 111

Some further development of the proposed parameters is required


112 Species distributional pattern






113 Area covered by species (benthic) NONE

12 Population size 121 Population abundancebiomass



There is high consensus on 4 of the 5 proposed parameters for 121


13 Population condition

131 Population demographics

Birds (4) Mammals (3) Fish (1) Reptiles (1)


There is high consensus on all of the proposed parameters for 131



132 Population genetic structure NONE

14 Habitat distribution

141 Habitat distributional range Benthic habitats (1)


There is high consensus for this proposal

No indication as to how much development would be required was provided at this stage




142 Habitat distributional pattern Benthic habitats (1)


There is some consensus for this proposal


15 Habitat extent 151 Habitat area Benthic habitats (2) There is some monitoring being conducted but more would be required

There is high consensus for both of the proposed parameters for 151


15 Habitat extent 152 Habitat volume NONE

16 Habitat condition 161 Condition of typical speciescommunities

Fish (3) Benthic habitats (5)




16 Habitat condition

162 Relative abundancebiomass of spp Benthic habitats (1)





163 Physical hydrological amp chemical conditions Benthic habitats (1)




17 Ecosystem structure

171 Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components Birds (1)

There is some monitoring being conducted by more would be required


Some further development of the proposed parameter is required


16

Descriptor 2


21 Abundance amp state of NIS in particular invasives

211 Trends in abundance occurrence amp distribution of NIS

Non- indigenous species (3)

No indication as to how much development would be required in terms of monitoring was provided at this stage for the three proposed parameters under 211

There is some consensus for each of the 3 proposed parameters

It is agreed that the concepts are sound but the parameters require substantial development and additional monitoring

22 Impact of invasives

221 Ratio invasive to native species NONE


222 Impacts of invasive species NONE

Descriptor 4

Criterion Indicator

Parameter metrics available for Monitoring Level of consensus Level of development

41 Productivity of key speciesgroups

411 Performance of key predators (productivity) Birds (2)


There is high consensus on the proposed parameters for 411


42 Proportion of selected species at top of food webs 421 Large fish Fish (1)

Some monitoring is in place but more is required

There is high consensus for the proposed parameter for 421

The parameter is already operational in the North Sea but requires further development in other regions

43 Abundancedistribution of of key trophic groupsspecies

431 Abundance trends of selected groupsspecies

Mammals (2) Birds (1)


There is high consensus on all proposed parameters for 431




Descriptor 6

Criterion Indicator


61 Physical damage having regard to substrate characteristics

611 Biogenic substrate

None ndash covered by 151


612 Extent of seabed significantly affected for the different substrate types Benthic habitats (1)

Not enough information is currrently available about existing monitoring so this would need to be investigated


Some further development of indicatorbaselinetargets required andor more monitoring required

62 Condition of benthic community

621 Presence of sensitive species

NONE ndash covered by 161


622 Multi-metric indexes Benthic habitats (1)


There is a high consensus for use of this parameter

No conclusion was reached on the level of development


623 Biomassnumber of individuals above specified lengthsize Benthic habitats (1)





624 Size spectrum of benthic community Benthic habitats (1)


18

Table 1b Summary of potential common parametersmetrics organised by ecosystem component and reflecting preliminary advice on parameters and current monitoring levels The table draws from the detailed tables presented in chapters 3 4 and 5 of the advice manual




The following table outlines an initial set of proposed common indicators on biodiversity (ie candidate common indicators)

Benthic Habitats [application of some parameters to predominant or special habitat types to be agreed] Number Parameter Monitoring Level of Consensus Level of development Links to COM

dec

1 Listed habitats (HD OSPAR)

Distributional range of all relevant habitats

Some monitoring exists but more is required



141


Distributional pattern of all relevant habitats


There is some consensus for use of this parameter


142


Habitat area




151

4 Predominant habitats (not listed) Habitat area Some monitoring exists but more is required



151

5 Typical species composition (presence) Some monitoring exists but more is required



161

6 Intertidal macrophyte species composition (abundance)




161

7 Density of biogenic structure forming species Some monitoring exists but more is required



161 D6

8 Impactvulnerability of habitat types to physical damage

No information provided about existing monitoring



161

9 Macrophyte depth distribution Some monitoring exists but more is required



161 D5 D6

10 Multi-metric indices to quantify relative abundance of benthic species or groups of species




161 622 relevant for many types of



(cumulative) pressures

11 Quality and abiotic conditions of all relevant habitats in Annex 1 of the Habitat Directive




163 D5 D6 D7 D8


Area of habitat damage




151 16 62

13 Predominant habitats (not listed)





151 16 62

14 Size-frequency distribution of bivalve or other sensitiveindicator species in the community




16 624

Fish Number Parameter Monitoring Level of Consensus Level of development Link to COM

dec

15 Distributional range of a suite of selected species Some monitoring exists but more is required


Some further development needed

111

16 Distributional pattern within range of a suite of selected species




112 121

17 Population abundance biomass of a suite of selected species




121

18 Bycatch rates of Chondrichthyes Some monitoring exists but more is required


No indication of required development

121

19 Proportion of mature fish in the populations of all species sampled adequately in international and national fish surveys

There is not enough information to determine sufficiency of monitoring


Sound concept but substantial development needed

131

20 OSPAR EcoQO for proportion of large fish for all species from the International Bottom Trawl Survey



Already operational 161 421

21 Conservation status of elasmobranch and demersal bony-fish species (IUCN)




161 421

22 Mean maximum length of demersal fish and elasmobranchs




161 421


20

Birds Number Parameter Monitoring Level of Consensus Level of development Link to COM

Dec

23 Distributional range of breeding and non-breeding marine birds




111

24 Distributional pattern of breeding and non-breeding marine birds




112

25 Species-specific trends in relative abundance of non-breeding and breeding marine bird species in all functional groups




121 431

26 Annual breeding success of kittiwake Monitoring is sufficient There is a high consensus for use of this parameter


131 411

27 Breeding successfailure of seabird species There is not enough information to determine sufficiency of monitoring



131 411

28 Mortality of seabirds from fishing (bycatch) and aquaculture

No monitoring There is a high consensus for use of this parameter


131

29 Non-nativeinvasive mammal presence on island seabird colonies




131 2

30 biodiversity in terms of species numbers species evenness or other indicators of specific assemblages




171

Mammals amp Reptiles (text in [ ] brackets requires further consideration) Number Parameter Monitoring Level of Consensus Level of development Link to COM

Dec

31 Distributional range of grey and harbour seal haul-outs amp breeding colonies

Monitoring is sufficient There is a high consensus for use of this parameter

Already operational 111

32 Distributional range at the relevant temporal scale of cetacean species regularly present




111



33 Distributional pattern of grey and harbour seal haul-outs amp breeding colonies



34 Distributional pattern at the relevant temporal scale of cetacean species regularly present




112

35 Abundance of grey and harbour seal at haul-out sites amp within breeding colonies



36 Abundance at the relevant temporal scale of cetacean species regularly present




121 131

37 Harbour seal and Grey seal pup production Monitoring is sufficient There is a high consensus for use of this parameter


38 Numbers of individuals within species (mammals) being bycaught in relation to population estimates

Some monitoring exists about bycatch occurrence but the population estimate is not always monitored so the applicability of the parameter is limited



131 43

39 Numbers of individuals within species (reptiles) being bycaught




131 43

Non-indigenous species Number Parameter Monitoring Level of Consensus Level of development Link to COM

Dec

40 Rate of new introductions of NIS (per defined period)

No information provided There is some consensus for the use of this parameter


211

41 Pathways management measures No information provided There is some consensus for the use of this parameter


211


22

1 Background

11 Purpose and scope of the Advice Manual The purpose of this Advice Manual is to provide those OSPAR Contracting Parties who are implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (Directive 200856EC) with practical advice on the methodologies to be applied for determining Good Environmental Status (GES) the setting of environmental targets and the selection of associated indicators for the MSFD biodiversity Descriptors The Manual is aimed at national experts and policy-makers who will be directly involved in this work at Member State and Regional Sea levels

The draft version of the Manual which was distributed in OSPAR and the EU working group on Good Environmental Status in June 2011 included leading principles and methods for defining indicators targets and baselines Further application and implementation of the Directive by Member States enabled an analysis of the level of coherence in nationally identified indicators and targets In order to identify candidates for a common set of indicators an OSPAR workshop was organised9 ICG-COBAM elaborated the results of this workshop into proposals for common indicators that are included in the current version of the Advice Manual The Manual is regarded as a living document

Under Articles 9 and 10 of the Directive it is the responsibility of Member States themselves to determine by 2012 the characteristics of GES and to establish the targets and associated indicators needed to guide progress towards GES Under Article 5 of the Directive Member States in a region or sub-region are required to cooperate to ensure that their delivery of Articles 9 and 10 inter alia is coherent and coordinated across the marine region or sub-region endeavouring to follow a common approach In this context the Advice Manual is intended as guidance to be used by OSPAR Contracting Parties to assist them in the coordinated and consistent implementation of the Directive in the north-east Atlantic region It is not intended to provide a legal interpretation of the requirements of the Directive

The advice presented in this Manual is in relation to the MSFD Descriptors identified in Box 2

Box 2 The MSFD Descriptors addressed in this manual

D1 Biological diversity is maintained The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic geographic and climatic conditions

D2 Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems

D4 All elements of the marine food webs to the extent that they are known occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity

D6 Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structures and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems in in particular are not adversely affected

Descriptor 3 concerning commercial fish and shellfish is being considered by Contracting Parties in conjunction with expert advice being developed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) This descriptor is therefore not directly addressed within this manual However the approaches to assessment of commercial fish and shellfish under D3 and presented here will benefit from mutual consideration as there could

9 OSPAR workshop on MSFD Biodiversity Descriptors comparison of targets and associated indicators hosted by the Netherlands and held

in Amsterdam 2-4 November 2011



be commonalities in the use of indicators and the setting of target threshold values for example as well as many interactions between the Descriptors

It is anticipated that it may not be possible by 2012 to have a complete refined picture of what constitutes GES what it means and how progress towards GES can be measured There is at present a need to further evolve the thinking behind the concepts and some information is not yet available It is therefore conceivable that by 2012 the initial assessment the set of GES characteristics the environmental targets and associated indicators will be a first attempt with the opportunity for further development and refinement in the subsequent six-year reporting period

12 Policy context

121 Requirements of the Directive

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive entered into force on 15 July 2008 Its purpose is to protect the marine environment and the resource base upon which marine-related economic and social activities depend

The Directive aims to achieve or maintain good environmental status (GES) in the marine environment by 2020 GES means that the seas are clean healthy and productive and that use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable The Directive requires an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities This means that the collective pressures from human activities acting on the marine environment are kept within levels compatible with the achievement of GES whilst enabling the sustainable use of marine goods and services by present and future generations

In order to achieve and maintain GES Member States must develop and implement marine strategies for their marine waters The Directive lays down a strict implementation timetable for the different elements of marine strategies An initial assessment of marine waters is to be undertaken by July 2012 Within the same timeframe a set of characteristics to describe GES as well as a set of environmental targets and associated indicators are to be determined Coordinated monitoring programmes for ongoing assessment of the status of marine waters must be in place by July 2014 Cost-effective and technically feasible programmes of measures must be developed by 2015 at the latest and these must enter into operation by 2016 at the latest The programmes of measures must be designed to achieve or maintain GES and should be devised on the basis of the precautionary principle and the principles that preventative action should be taken that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay

122 Requirements for determining GES and establishing environmental targets and indicators

Article 9 of the Directive requires Member States in respect of each marine region or sub-region to determine a set of characteristics for GES for their marine waters on the basis of the qualitative Descriptors listed in Annex I of the Directive GES is to be determined at the level of the marine region or sub-region (Article 3(5)) and must take into account the indicative lists of characteristics as well as the pressures and impacts listed respectively in Table 1 and Table 2 of Annex III of the Directive

In order to provide consistency and allow comparison between marine regions or sub-regions in determining GES the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators sets out the criteria which are to be used by Member States for assessing the extent to which GES is being achieved in relation to each of the eleven Descriptors listed in Annex 1 In this context the lsquoGES criteriarsquo refer to particular aspects of a Descriptor that require their status to be assessed through the application of appropriate indicators to determine whether that aspect meets GES or not Thus in relation to Descriptor 1 on biological diversity the population size of a particular species is a criterion (GES criterion 12) by which to judge whether the species under consideration in a particular region or sub-region meets GES or not Similarly habitat extent (GES criterion 15) is one of a number of criteria listed in the Commission Decision by which to judge whether a habitat type in a specific region or sub-region is at GES


24

lsquoEnvironmental targetrsquo according to Article 3 means a qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components of and pressures and impacts on marine waters in respect of each marine region or sub-region Article 10 requires that ldquoMember States shall in respect of each marine region or sub-region establish a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters so as to guide progress towards achieving good environmental status in the marine environment taking into account the indicative lists of pressures and impacts set out in Table 2 of Annex III and of characteristics set out in Annex IVrdquo

The GES criteria listed in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators are accompanied by one or more related indicators An indicator can be considered a specific characteristic of a GES criterion (such as for example indicator 151 habitat area which is one of two listed indicators for the criterion habitat extent) that can either be qualitatively described or quantitatively assessed to determine alone or in combination with other indicators whether that criterion meets GES and if not to ascertain how far it departs from GES

Indicators can therefore be used within the framework of the Directive to assess

a environmental condition (state) and the extent to which GES is being achieved with respect to any particular GES criterion in the Commission Decision

b environmental impact reflecting an undesirable state and the extent to which the impact is being reduced in relation to the desired state (GES) and associated targets

c pressures from human activities and the extent to which the pressure is being reduced in relation to associated targets

Some indicators may serve several purposes at the same time It is also possible to have indicators centred on human activities (drivers) and measures (response) within a DPSIR (Driver Pressure State Impact Response) management framework but these may be more appropriate for later phases in MSFD implementation

123 The role of OSPAR

The Directive requires Member States to cooperate to ensure the coordinated development of marine strategies for each marine region or sub-region and where practical and appropriate make use of existing institutional structures established in marine regions or sub-regions in particular Regional Sea Conventions

At the Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission which took place in Bergen Norway in September 2010 OSPAR undertook to facilitate the coordinated implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the OSPAR maritime area The North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy10 identifies those areas where coordination is needed by OSPAR In relation to the assessment of environmental status and the establishment of targets and indicators OSPAR will where practicable and appropriate ensure that

a assessment methodologies are consistent across the North-East Atlantic

b environmental targets are mutually compatible

c monitoring methods are consistent so as to facilitate comparability of monitoring results

d relevant transboundary impacts and transboundary features are taken into account and

e environmental targets and indicators as well as assessments of environmental status will take due account of specific sub-regionalsub-divisonal environmental characteristics

10 OSPAR Agreement 2010-3 North East Atlantic Environment Strategy Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic 2010 - 2020



Specifically in the context of the Biological Diversity and Ecosystems thematic strategy the OSPAR Commission will by 2013 agree an overall process for assessing marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and develop and agree by 2014 a coordinated monitoring programme for the ongoing assessment of the environmental status with regard to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the OSPAR maritime area ICG-COBAM is the main delivery group within the OSPAR framework for coordination in relation to the biodiversity aspects of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

124 Time table for implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

July 2012 Finalised initial assessment set of characteristics for GES and comprehensive set of targets and associated indicators

July 2014 Monitoring programme finalised and implemented

December 2015 Programme of measures established

December 2016 Entry into operation of programme of measures

July 2018 Review of initial assessment set of characteristics for GES and comprehensive set of targets and indicators

July 2020 Review established monitoring programme

December 2020 Achieve or maintain good environmental status

13 Knowledge base for the Advice Manual The Advice Manual builds upon

a the results11 of an OSPARMSFD workshop on approaches to determining GES for biodiversity held in Utrecht The Netherlands 23-24 November 2010 Experts on different aspects of the biodiversity and human pressures participated in the workshop along side policy-makers

This workshop considered ways in which GES could be defined under the MSFD and how quantitative targets for GES (including associated pressures) could be developed for the MSFD Biodiversity Descriptors (1 2 4 and 6) The workshop focused initially on technical discussions concerning the definition of GES and progressed to consider (i) the appraisal of target-setting approaches that have been adopted under existing environmental Directives and Conventions (eg Habitats Directive WFD OSPAR HELCOM) and (ii) the exploration of other national and international target-setting approaches that might be appropriate in an MSFD context

The workshop aimed to provide a practical way forward for defining GES and setting state and pressure targets for the biodiversity descriptors The advice on baseline and target-setting approaches was developed by a series of subgroups which were organised according to broad habitat types and species groups This structure is brought through in Part II of this manual The lessons learned and conclusions from the workshop are presented as Annex 81

b the results of an OSPAR workshop on MSFD biodiversity descriptors comparison of targets and associated indicators hosted by the Netherlands and held in Amsterdam 2-4 November 2011

11 OSPAR (2011) Biodiversity Series Report of the OSPARMSFD workshop on approaches to determining GES for biodiversity 2010

httpwwwosparorgdocumentsdbasepublicationsp00553_GES4BIO_workshop20report_finalpdf


26

The purpose of the workshop was to undertake a comparison and discussion on the state aspects of biodiversity and identify where there may be commonalities in setting targets and associated indicators for the MSFD biodiversity Descriptors 1 2 4 and 6 The outputs of the workshop setting out potential proposals for common biodiversity indicators have been incorporated into this Advice Manual

14 How to use this document This Advice Manual is a first step to providing pragmatic advice to Contracting Parties that can be used to address the short-term (ie 2012) requirements of the Directive At the same time the document starts to explore the longer-term approaches that will be needed for biodiversity assessment to support implementation of the ecosystem-based management required by OSPARs North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy12 and by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

This is the third version of the Advice Manual which will continue to be improved and extended in an iterative process It is envisaged that its scope will be broadened and further developed on the basis of practical application and implementation of the Directive While the present version is aimed at the 2012 MSFD products its future development will deliver advice for the ongoing reporting requirements eg 2014 monitoring programmes 2015 programmes of measures and 2018 updating of the initial assessment

The document is structured in a way that will help the reader identify the most appropriate sections for their needs After setting the context the bulk of the Advice Manual is divided into two parts and a series of Annexes

Part I in thinking about principles it explores the concepts behind the text of the Directive particularly as many of these concepts for biodiversity are new and require innovation in assessment and monitoring

Part II looks at the application of these principles to species and habitats as biodiversity components identified for monitoring and assessment of the marine environment Part II also contains elaborated proposals for common indicators and targets by which OSPAR aims to improve coherence within sub-regions and at the level of the OSPAR area

This is a living document which will evolve over time being informed by the experiences of implementing the MSFD Feedback or considerations for subsequent iterations of the advice manual are welcome please send these to secretariatosparorg with the subject lsquoCOBAMAdvicersquo

12 Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic 2010-2020 (OSPAR

Agreement 2010-3)



PART I Principles Part I of this Advice Manual presents some of the conceptual thinking and principles concerning how to go about determining GES and what elements are needed in order to establish targets and identify indicators that will enable measurement of progress towards or maintenance of GES Many of these concepts are new and require innovation in biodiversity assessment and monitoring Evolution of the principles over time may be expected

2 Introduction 21 What is GES

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (Directive 200856EC) requires Members States to take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain GES by 2020

Good environmental status is the desired state of the marine environment and its components ndash which according to the MSFD is to be determined at regional or sub regional scales A definition is provided in Art 35 of the Directive and further elaborated in terms of 11 Descriptors in Annex I of the MSFD More specifically GES is determined using a number of criteria and indicators associated to each descriptor as given by the EU Commissions Decision on criteria and methodological standards The reader is directed to the Commission Decision 2010477EU13 for more detail Further details on application of the Commission Decision criteria including linkages between Annex I and III of the Directive are given in the Commission Staff Working Paper (2011)14

22 Talking a common language The terminology of the MSFD of the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators and of relevant guidance literature (eg the ICESJRC Task Group 1 (TG1) report for Descriptor 115) is not always self-explanatory Therefore a proposed set of definitions and interpretations has been developed through ICG-COBAM to help Contracting Parties communicate in a common language This is presented as Annex 82 [to be harmonised with the terminology in the EU Common Understanding paper16]

13 Europeam Commission (2010) Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good

environmental status of marine waters (2010477EU)

httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=OJL201023200140024ENPDF

14 European Commission (2011) Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status

Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011) 1255


15 SKJ Cochrane DW Connor P Nilsson I Mitchell J Reker J Franco V Valavanis S Moncheva J Ekebom K Nygaard R Serratildeo

Santos I Narberhaus T Packeiser W van de Bund amp AC Cardoso (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 1 Report

Biological Diversity Ed H Piha JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR 24337 EN ndash 2010 16 Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) and Establishment of Environmental

Targets (Art 8 9 amp 10 MSFD) - endorsed by the Marine Directors December 2011 as a living document


28

23 Overview of the biodiversity Descriptors The four biodiversity Descriptors covered in this Manual are presented in Box 2 above The following overall approach to each descriptor is recommended

Descriptor 1 Biodiversity ndash the guidance for this descriptor is organised around the different levels of biological organisation as reflected in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators and the ICESJRC Task Group 1 report

a Species ndash individual species such as those listed under Community Directives or identified as key species for assessment of a wider functional group

b Functional groups ndash covering the birds mammals reptiles fish and cephalopods and representing the main functional groups of the more highly mobile and widely-dispersed taxa

c Habitat types ndash predominant and special (listed) types covering both the seabed and water column habitats and including their associated biological communities (in the sense of the term biotope as given in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators)

d Ecosystems ndash where assessment of multiple habitats and functional groups as part of larger ecosystems is envisaged

Criteria for assessment of GES for these levels are provided in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators these focus on defining the state of biodiversity with the Commission Decision indicators also focusing on state aspects

Descriptor 2 Non-indigenous species (NIS) ndash this guidance addresses the stateimpact aspects of the Descriptor whilst pressures associated with the Descriptor will be considered by OSPARrsquos Committee on the Environmental Impact of Human Activities (EIHA) in the future This guidance therefore focuses on this descriptor from the perspective of the impact of NIS on the native biodiversity with a main focus on linking the assessments of NIS to the functional groups and habitat types where appropriate it may be relevant to also consider NIS in relation to specific species and at the ecosystem level more detailed consideration of Descriptor 2 is provided in Section 6

Descriptor 4 Food webs ndash the application of this Descriptor is less well advanced than the other descriptors with specific indicators and targets at an early stage of consideration It is envisaged in the first instance that the data and indicators arising from the more specific aspects of biodiversity (Descriptor 1 Descriptor 6 and some pressureimpact descriptors) covering the range of mobile species and habitat types can provide the starting point for establishing indicators and assessments for this descriptor However greater emphasis on more holistic indicators which better reflect the functioning aspects of this descriptor may be required in the longer term Careful selection of species and habitat types for assessment of Descriptor 1 and Descriptor 6 should therefore facilitate the ability to address Descriptor 4 (ie consider the needs for Descriptor 4 when making the selections for Descriptor 1 and Descriptor 6) It may be most appropriate to focus on developing indicators for key functional groups of species under this Descriptor This descriptor has a focus on functional aspects of the ecosystem and can be associated with the assessment of ecosystem structure required under Decriptor 1

Descriptor 6 Sea-floor integrity ndash This descriptor considers non-biogenic habitats and biogenic habitats Due to the close nature of this descriptor to the seabed habitats to be assessed under Descriptor 1 and the specific mention of biogenic substrates and different substrate types in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators this descriptor should be directly linked to the seabed habitat assessments under Descriptor 1 It is recommended that assessment of the predominant seabed habitats under Descriptor 1 should therefore form the basis for assessments of substrate types under Descriptor 6 ie that single assessments are undertaken to meet the needs of both Descriptors For Descriptor 1 the GES criteria and indicators can be considered to have more of a structural perspective whilst the criteria and indicators for Descriptor 6 have more of a functional



perspective although there is a high degree of overlap in the nature of the indicators This approach is considered most efficient in terms of future monitoring and assessment needs

24 Relationships to other Descriptors The assessment of GES for the biodiversity Descriptors 1 4 and 6 (often considered as state descriptors) has links to the other Descriptors that focus on pressures and their impacts on the environment In assessing the state of a biodiversity component (eg a species or habitat type) it is necessary to assess in relation to the desired state (GES) the total level of impact both its intensity and extent from all the pressures affecting the component Some pressures and impacts are dealt with as part of other descriptors For example the assessment of a shallow rock habitat needs information on the level of impact from nutrient enrichment (from the assessments under Descriptor 5) contamination (from Descriptor 8) non-indigenous species (from Descriptor 2) and from physical disturbance (from Descriptor 6) and hydrographical changes (from Descriptor 7) In this way the assessments under other descriptors should support and contribute to the assessment of the biodiversity components Figure 1 illustrates the concept of multiple impacts affecting a biodiversity component (eg a habitat) and where assessments of impacts from other descriptors are needed to support the biodiversity assessments

Loss

of

rang

e

Occasional trawling

Moderate trawling

Habitat loss (coastal

infrastructure)

Intense trawling

Contaminants but not impacted

Nutrient enrichment

Contamination - impact

Habitat loss (infrastructure)

Eutrophication

Cum

ulat

ive

pres

sure

s -

impa

ctD5D7

Hydrological change

D8

D6

Invasive

species

D2

Loss

of

rang

e

Occasional trawling

Moderate trawling


infrastructure)

Intense trawling


Nutrient enrichment



Eutrophication

Cum

ulat

ive

pres

sure

s -

impa

ctD5D7

Hydrological change

D8

D6

Invasive

species

D2

Figure 1 Illustrative scenario to show that multiple pressures and impacts may affect a particular biodiversity component (in this example asingle habitat type is represented by the total area of the green box) Green shades indicate acceptable condition orange and red shades indicate unacceptable (impacted) condition related to the intensity of the pressure and the sensitivity of the component Yellow boxes indicate where assessments for other Descriptors (eg D2 D7 D8) can contribute to a biodiversity assessment

To facilitate such an integration across the Descriptors there needs to be

a Cooperation between those responsible for the biodiversity Descriptors and those dealing with associated pressures and impacts under other Descriptors


30

b Information on the intensity distribution and extent of the impact on biodiversity obtained from assessments of other Descriptors (whether known from sampling or modelled from pressures) in a form that can be directly linked to the biodiversity components and their scale of assessment Ideally this should be in the form of GIS (geographical information system) data that allow interface with biodiversity data and assessment of cumulative impacts

c Identification of those pressures (and impacts) which are not being addressed by other Descriptors and development of similar (GIS) data on the pressures and impacts

Given the breadth of biodiversity in the north-east Atlantic region and the large geographical areas to be addressed the assessment of biodiversity needs a strong focus on impacts resulting from human-induced pressures Such an approach will significantly help focus on those aspects of biodiversity and on particular areas which may be most at risk of not being at GES This can help ensure assessment and monitoring effort is most effectively targeted towards those aspects at most risk and to focus measures in order to address the most significant impacts as a priority For these reasons the delivery of the Directive against the biodiversity Descriptors needs to be well coordinated and integrated with that of the pressure-based Descriptors together with the assessment of pressures and impacts for the Initial Assessment (Table 2 of Annex III to the Directive)

25 Consistency between targets for all Descriptors Because of the strong inter-relationships between the biodiversity Descriptors and other Descriptors there is a need to review all targets as a whole to ensure there are no substantial conflicts between them (Annex IV of the Directive) and where necessary adjust certain targets to ensure compatibility between the descriptors This is particularly relevant as the state of biodiversity and ecosystems is dynamic such that changes in pressures on one part of the ecosystem may give rise to significant or unexpected changes in another part (thereby potentially influencing another target)

26 Elements for determining GES In order to determine and then assess progress towards GES a number of factors must be considered These are presented briefly in this section before going more deeply into the application of these elements in Part II

261 Assessment areas and components

The assessment of GES and the setting of targets needs to be based on specified biodiversity components and particular geographic areas (assessment areas) This is equivalent to the approach in the Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive which each adopt specific components (WFD quality elements Habitats Directive Annex I and II features) and areas for assessment and reporting (WFD uses water bodies Habitats Directive uses bio-geographical regions within a Member State territory) Specified components and areas provide essential clarity on how GES will be assessed and enable consistency to be achieved between Member States at the regional and sub-regional scale

The MSFD provides a basis for defining both of these aspects each of which has been further considered by ICG-COBAM taking into account guidance from the ICESJRC TG reports These are further elaborated in Section 26 and Sections 4 and 5 with respect to different biodiversity components

262 Determining GES and target-setting

For the Descriptors dealt with in this Advice Manual (Descriptor 1 Descriptor 2 Descriptor 4 Descriptor 6) the determination of GES means defining the desired state of the biodiversity components of the marine environment according to the GES Descriptor and its criteria and in line with the overarching definition of GES in Article 35 This can be in the form of qualitative descriptions at the level of the Descriptor and its criteria but



should wherever possible be expressed quantitatively as this will provide a clear expression against which to assess whether GES is being met or maintained Expressing GES quantitatively includes setting threshold values per criterion (or if appropriate per indicator) which define the boundary between the desired and undesired state It is also possible to express GES in terms of the desired limits for levels of impact on biodiversity and for the desired limits for levels of pressure on biodiversity These threshold values are sometimes referred to as targets (target or limit values as appropriate)17

The present state of individual biodiversity components (based on the result of the initial assessment under Art 8) should be compared against the desired state (ie GES and associated targets for each criterion) Assessment of the present state should have taken into account all the impacts arising from existing or past pressures on the component It should be kept in mind that the desired state (GES or defined as state targets) needs to allow for ecologically sustainable use of the marine environment it consequently may need to allow for some level of impact from these activities This is why state targets (when expressed as an absolute value rather than a trend) are often expressed as an acceptable deviation from a reference state (ie a state in which there is negligible human impact18)

The desired state of biodiversity can generally only realistically be achieved by a reduction or removal of pressures causing impacts to the biodiversity thereby allowing the ecosystem to recover to a less impacted state There may however be some circumstances where more active management intervention is appropriate although these can require more resources to achieve effective biodiversity outcomes Where differences exist between the desired state (GES) and the present state the pressure or pressures giving rise to this difference should be identified and appropriate pressure-reduction targets set For some aspects of biodiversity (especially species at the top of food webs) the link to pressures may be difficult to establish with certainty This will likely result in less emphasis on establishing impact and pressure targets nevertheless for such species a focus on known pressures is a practical way to help improve their status

The link between pressures resulting in impacts and the corresponding activities causing the pressures should be the basis for and provide a direct link to the determination of management measures required under Art 13 As such it is often also appropriate to set pressure targets which describe an appropriate level of a particular pressure even where GES is currently being achieved this would ensure that environmental status does not deteriorate in the future and that there is a framework for the management of newincreased pressures

Some pressure targets can be based on direct evidence (via known impacts on the state of the ecosystem) However in many cases a clear quantitative link cannot be established but the impacts (direct or indirect) are known in principle (eg based on evidence from other areas) As the Directive requires that measures be devised on the basis of the precautionary principle and that preventative action should be taken pressure-based targets should be set with these principles in mind Furthermore there may be cases where pressures have no obvious link to ecosystem state but rather to pollution effects (as defined by Article 3 (8)) such as amenity values (eg litter) and ecosystem goods and services Here pressure targets can be developed even though they may not necessarily lead to a direct improvement in state

Throughout the process indicators are used to inform progress towards the accomplishment or maintenance of environmenal targets as well as on the achievement of the overall goal GES

17 Eg for expressing quantitative values under Art 10 rather than under Art 9 (see EU Common Understanding paper) 18 Often referred to as reference condition


32

The process described above is illustrated in Figure 2 using the criteria for Descriptor 1 as an example

Figure 2 Relationships between state impacts pressures and activities as a basis for the development of stateimpact and pressure targets indicators and management measures illustrated here for the criteria of Descriptor 1 See text for explanation

263 Characteristics of an effective indicator

Concerted efforts are needed to protect marine ecosystems The knowledge required for effective management of human activities having an impact on the marine environment (ie management that provides for legitimate human use while maintaining the diversity and productivity of the seas) comes from careful observation of particular environmental properties functions and conditions Marine environmental indicators are important because they provide insight into the health of marine systems they are a means for assessing progress towards environmental targets and for monitoring the efficacy of regulatory and management actions

In general terms an indicator can be regarded as any measurable feature or condition of the marine environment that is relevant to the stability and integrity of habitats and communities the sustainability of ecosystem good and services (eg primary productivity maintenance of food chains nutrient cycling biodiversity) the quality and safety of seafood and the status of amenities of socio-economic importance Detailed characteristics of an effective indicator are specified in Table 1 of Annex 82 (Terminology)

264 Setting a baseline

Setting appropriate targets should include the determination of a relevant baseline A baseline can be defined as a specific value of state (or pressureimpact) against which subsequent values are compared essentially a



standard (articulated in terms of both quality andor quantity) against which various parameters can be measured It is important to emphasise that the desired state (target) for GES is not always the same as the baseline as the target can be set as a deviation from the baseline or as a trend towards the baseline However how a baseline is set has a critical effect on what state targets for biodiversity might look like as illustrated in Figure 3 In the diagram both the quality (eg of a habitat or population of a species) and the quantity (eg habitat extent population size) are shown to be deteriorating from left to right such that setting the baseline as current state represents a very different scenario to using past state or reference state The establishment of a baseline and related state targets needs to address both quantity and quality aspects

Figure 3 Illustration of how a deterioration in state over time associated with increases in pressures and impacts can include changes in both quality (eg of a habitat or population of a species) and quantity (eg habitat extent population size) of a biodiversity component Setting the baseline as current state represents a very different scenario to using past state or reference state

The state of the marine environment in Europe has changed significantly over the last few hundred (or even thousand) years from an environment that was relatively unimpacted by human activities to one where evidence of adverse effects (impacts) from human activity is ubiquitous These influences together with dynamic changes in the ecosystem (eg fluxes in predator-prey relationships) and ongoing climatic changes often make it difficult to determine the condition that biodiversity should be in to achieve GES and a baseline upon which to base this assessment

Descriptor 1 expresses the goal for biodiversity as the quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic geographic and climatic conditions The ICESJRC Task Group on Descriptor 1 advised that the phrase in line with prevailing physiographic geographic and climatic conditions refers to what might be expected under natural environmental conditions according to current physiographic and climatic situations which vary regionally In this context the setting of a baseline for biodiversity aspects of the Directive should be based on prevailing physiographic geographic and climatic conditions but needs to consider how biodiversity has changed in the past to help guide what might be


34

expected under current conditions The accommodation of sustainable uses of marine goods and services a key element of Directive (Art 13) should be reflected in target-setting rather than baseline-setting



3 Approaches to determining GES 31 Understanding GES for biodiversity

The ICESJRC Task Group 1 report provided guidance on the interpretation of Descriptor 1 whereby the aim to have biodiversity in line with prevailing physiographic geographic and climatic conditions could be interpreted as the condition of biodiversity in the absence of pressures Whilst the Directive has a goal to phase out all pollution (Art 12) it is not considered feasible to remove all pressures on the marine environment For instance it is probably not possible to irradicate invasive non-indigenous species and certain human activities by their nature give rise to some levels of impact on the environment To reflect these issues and to accommodate sustainable uses of the environment within the concept of GES it was envisaged that some unavoidable levels of deterioration would need to be incorporated into the definition of GES and its associated targets for Descriptor 1 Similar considerations can be applied for Descriptors 4 and 6

GES for the biodiversity Descriptors in relation to the GES criteria can consequently be considered to fall into two key aspects

a A quality aspect ndash based on increasing intensities of pressures at what stage can aspects of biodiversity quality (eg population condition habitat condition) be considered to have deteriorated to a level at which they are no longer in an acceptable condition (ie they are impacted by one or more pressures) The characteristics of the impact will vary according to the type of pressure (ie physical pressures can have different effects to chemical pressures) GES is then represented by a range of conditions with a lower limit marking the boundary to a sub-GES condition The boundary is preferably defined by a specific value (or range of values) for a given indicator (ie quantitatively) but can also be expressed descriptively (ie qualitatively) (Figure 4)

b A quantitative aspect ndash Some criteria (eg species distribution population size habitat extent) are best considered in quantitative terms setting quantitative state target values where appropriate Additionally for criteria determining quality aspects (eg population or habitat condition) it is important to consider how much of the population of a species or of a habitat type at the scale of assessment is impacted and hence the proportion of the population or habitat type that should be in good condition in order for the population species or habitat type to be considered in good status (Figure 1)

GES for biodiversity can therefore be expected to

a Have a quality and proportion aspect (whether expressed as GES only or as GES and stateimpact targets)19

b Accommodate some level of impact such that quality is not even across an entire region or sub-region

c Represent a defined deviation from a reference state20 accommodating sustainable use of the marine environment provided that there is no further deterioration from present state (at an appropriate scale of assessment)

This approach is equivalent to assessment of Good Ecological Status for the WFD and Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) for the Habitats Directive which accommodate a defined deviation from reference state (ie the absence or negligible level of impact from anthropogenic pressures)

19 It may not be possible to define proportion aspects in all cases especially where data are limited but for certain criteria (eg habitat

condition) it is important to define a target value for the extent of habitat that should be in good condition

20 It may not always be possible to quantitatively determine lsquoreference statersquo ie a state at which the anthropogenic influences are negligible

for the species or habitats concerned


36

State with negligible impact

Unacceptable degree of change - impacted

Destroyed irrecoverable

Sub-GEnSGood Environmental Status

Acceptable degree of change

Pressure

Reference condition ndash for

habitat community

and area

Few non-indigenous spp in

low density

Many non-indigenous spp in high density

Non-indigenous spp dominant

Minor changes to spp Dense green algae Community switched

Minor spp amp physical changes

Loss of sensitive spp opportunist spp increasing

Habitat andor community destroyed

D2 Non-indigenous spp

D5 Nutrient enrichment (Eutrophication)

D6 Physical disturbance (sea-floor integrity)

Lower limit of GES quality






Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density











Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density











habitat community

and area


low density











Figure 4 Relationship between quality of a biodiversity component and changes caused by different pressures Types of change are illustrative for the three pressures shown The lower limit of acceptable change in quality needs to be calibrated across relevant pressures for each biodiversity component (adapted from Cochrane et al 2010)

311 GES in a dynamic ecosystem and changing climate

Whilst the state of biodiversity in the past (in the absence of pressures) can be used to inform what might be defined as the desired state of biodiversity there are two key issues namely ecosystem dynamics and climate changes which could make it inappropriate to reference to a specific state in the past In such a case GES needs to be re-assessed on the basis of prevailing conditions

Dynamic ecosystems and changing climates will lead to continuous changes in species composition and their relative abundance within communities and ecosystems in any given part of a region So setting GES in a manner which is too specific in terms of the species composition and population sizes to be achieved will not allow for ecosystem changes (such as changing predator-prey relationships) or climatic variation As these aspects are beyond the control of normal management measures it could lead to GESstate targets being set in an unrealistic manner It is therefore preferable to consider good status at the slightly broader level of functional groups of species and functional habitats within which a suitable degree of fluctuation in species composition and relative abundance can be anticipated For instance within a benthic community assessing condition on the basis of the balance of functional groups (eg filter feeders grazers) which should be present rather than a highly specified list of typical species Similarly with larger more mobile species it may be more appropriate to consider which of a range of species within a functional group might represent good overall status In any case the causes of change should be identified and considered whether these are within the control of management measures

However past conditions (eg for species range population size species composition) can be used as a guide to what might be expected now (if there were no impacts) or in the future (if pressures are removed)



32 Making use of existing biodiversity targets and indicators There already exist a number of policy instruments that establish environmental objectives for marine waters which include the setting of targets and indicators for the protection of marine ecosystems These include

a The Water Framework Directive Annex V of the Directive specifies threshold quality values and indicators to be used in monitoring and assessing the ecological status of transitional and coastal waters

b The Birds and Habitats Directives these Directives establish a requirement to maintain and if necessary restore to favourable conservation status (FCS) naturally occurring species and habitats across EU Member States by establishing special protection requirements for those natural habitats and wild flora and fauna of Community Interest listed in Annex I and II of the Directives Site-specific conservation objectives must be established for Natura 2000 sites Criteria and specified threshold values are given to assess whether FCS has been achieved

c The OSPAR list of threatened andor declining species and habitats is established on the basis of criteria which provide quantitative andor qualitative values for assessing their status (ie whether they should be listed for protection)

d The OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure (COMPP) identified several indicators which are primarily related to eutriphication assessments but which could additionally contribute to the setting of biodiversity targets and indicators Its indicatorscriteria include phytoplankton species shifts in macrophyte species composition and those relating to zoobenthos (changeskills in species)

e The UNEP Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) includes objectives to conserve terrestrial marine and avian migratory species throughout their range More specifically they aim to conserve

bull Small Cetaceans of the Baltic North-East Atlantic Irish and North Seas

bull Cetaceans of the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and neighbouring Atlantic Area

bull Seals in the Wadden Sea

bull African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds

bull Albatrosses and Petrels

f ASCOBANS promotes cooperation amongst Contracting Parties with a view to achieving and maintaining a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans in the North and Baltic Seas On the other hand ACCOBAMS promotes coordinated measures to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for all cetacean species The ASCOBANS Conservation and Management Plan and the ACCOBAMS Conservation Plan requires Parties to implement a variety of different measures including reducing bycatch marine pollution and disturbance conducting surveys and research on species ecology and abundance adopting protective national laws and raising public awareness In the framework of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation the Netherlands Denmark and Germany have elaborated valuable basics as regards assessing the status of the whole Wadden Sea area as well as pressures and impacts affecting its ecosystem components The focus of this cooperation is the protection and conservation of the Wadden Sea aiming at an undisturbed dynamic ecosystem and covering management monitoring and research as well as policy issues The latest Joint Declaration on the Protection of the Wadden Sea was adopted at the Ministerial Conference in 2010 together with the new Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan 201021

21 httpwwwwaddensea-secretariatorgindexhtml


38

g The Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats The broad aims of the Bern Convention are lsquoto conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitatsrsquo with special ndash but not exclusive ndash attention for lsquothose species and habitats whose conservation requires the co-operation of several Statesrsquo and also lsquoto promote such co-operationrsquo with a particular emphasis on endangered and vulnerable species including migratory ones In order to achieve these aims Article 2 of the Convention stipulates with respect to all wildlife that parties lsquoshall take requisite measures to maintain the population of wild flora and fauna at or adapt it to a level which corresponds in particular to ecological scientific and cultural requirements while taking account of economic and recreational requirements and the sub-species varieties or forms at risk locallyrsquo Additionally Article 3 commits parties to lsquoundertakersquo to lsquohave regard to the conservation of wild flora and faunarsquo in their lsquoplanning and development policiesrsquo and when taking lsquomeasures against pollutionrsquo

321 OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives

OSPAR has developed a set of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea The EcoQOs have been developed as tools to help OSPAR fulfil its commitment to apply the ecosystem approach

EcoQOs provide a link between human activities and impacts on biodiversity The system of EcoQOs for the North Sea defines the desired qualities of selected components of marine ecosystems in relation to particular pressures from human activities The EcoQOs set objectives for specified indicators and provide a means to measure progress Collectively EcoQOs are intended to provide comprehensive coverage of ecosystems and the pressures acting upon them Most EcoQOs link to specific human activities such as shipping (oil at sea) litter and fishing Some EcoQOs such as the EcoQOs for seal populations indicate the health status of ecosystem components that are affected by multiple pressures A number of EcoQOs are under development eg on seabird populations declining habitats and marine beach litter

The EcoQOs could contribute to the identification of environmental targets and indicators under the MSFD and the experience with the EcoQO system in the North Sea canshould be seen as a starting point for Contracting Parties in other OSPAR regions It is therefore recommended to use where possible comparable ecological quality elements to those used in the North Sea to provide harmonisation throughout the OSPAR maritime area

The knowledge and experiences gained in the EcoQO process can be used in the approaches to GES-target-setting for MSFD Descriptors Table 2 in Annex 83 gives an overview of the relationship between GES Descriptorscriteria and the OSPAR EcoQOs Information on practical aspects of EcoQO implementation including target-setting can be found in the ldquoHandbook for the application of Ecological Quality Objectives in the North Sea Second editionrdquo (OSPAR Publication Number 3072009)

33 Approaches for setting targets and baselines for new indicators

331 Baseline-setting approaches

Approaches to setting baselines are described below the most appropriate method for particular biodiversity components is addressed in Sections 4 5 and 6 Refer also to section 264 and Figure 3 regarding distinction of quality and proportion aspects of setting baselines

a Method A (reference state with negligible impacts) - Baselines can be set as a state in which the anthropogenic influences on species and habitats are considered to be negligible This state is also known as lsquoreference conditionrsquo

b Method B (past state) - Baselines can be set as a state in the past based on a time-series dataset for a specific species or habitat selecting the period in the dataset which is considered to reflect least impacted conditions



c Method C (current state) - The date of introduction of an environmental directive or policy can be used as the baseline state As this may represent an already deteriorated state of biodiversity the associated target typically includes an expression of no further deterioration from this state

In the application of these methods it is important to take account of ecosystem dynamics and climatic variation (see Section 311) as these processes may lead to change over time in for example the distribution of a species or the composition of a community Because of this the use of baselines (and targets set as a deviation from a baseline) should aim to reflect a state of biodiversity that is consistent with lsquoprevailing physiographic geographic and climatic conditionsrsquo as given in the Task Group 1 report for Descriptor 1 (Cochrane et al 2010)

Method A - Baseline as a state at which the anthropogenic influences are considered to be negligible

Figure 5 Baseline Method A ndash as a state at which anthrogenic influences are negligible (reference state)

There are three options for setting baselines as a state at which anthropogenic influences are considered to be negligible (Figure 5) It is acknowledged that it is not possible to determine indisputably lsquounimpactedrsquo reference values either through modellinghistoric data or through marine areas where human effects are currently minimal

i Existing reference state

The first approach is to use current information on species and habitats from areas where human pressure is considered negligible or non-existent (for example in some marine protected areas) There may not be reference areas containing exactly the species or habitat for which targets need to be set but it may be possible to use an analogous species or habitat This approach was used to set reference conditions for the Water Framework Directive

This approach is a scientifically robust basis for setting baselines as it demonstrates reference conditions under current physiographic geographic and climatic conditions It is also a relatively transparent and comprehensible approach which can provide precise data on species composition and relative abundances However its robustness depends on the existence of areas of negligible impact containing species and habitats that are the same or very similar to those to be assessed under the MSFD There are likely to be few genuinely unimpacted areas in the North-East Atlantic although as marine protected area networks are further developed more areas may ultimately be considered to be in lsquoreference state (at least for habitats and low mobility species)

ii Historical reference state

The second approach is to use historical information to ascertain what a habitatcommunity or species population may have been like at a time when impacts from human activities were negligible This information


40

can be found in a variety of sources such as historical accounts old maps fishing and whaling records shiprsquos logs tax documents and archaeological information such as fish bone remains

In the absence of present day reference state information this method22 offers a way to determine reference state of biodiversity but it is likely to yield mostly qualitative information on species composition and their abundance

This approach provides a moderately scientifically robust basis for setting baselines depending on the quality and quantity of the available data as well as expert judgement used in the interpretation of that data It is a comprehensible approach but perhaps less transparent than Method Ai The time involved in applying this approach depends on the degree to which existing research or data archiving programmes can deliver MSFD data needs Climatic changes and ecosystem dynamics (eg predator-prey relationships) since the period used as a reference point needs to be built into any final definition of reference state

iii Modelling of reference state

A third approach to setting a baseline is one based on modelling23 of reference states This approach is closely linked to approach (ii) in that models depend on historic as well as current information to develop a theoretical state of unimpacted ecosystems under present climatic conditions

As with approach (ii) the scientific robustness of this option has the potential to be moderate or even high depending on the nature of the modelling exercise and crucially on the quality of the data which it is fed It offers the possibility of introducing current and future climate scenarios and their effects on biodiversity state However it is perhaps the least transparent or comprehensible of the three approaches Another limitation of this approach is that of time Unless existing programmes are underway that can deliver MSFD needs new modelling work is not likely to take place within the 2012 timeframes However it is an approach that could be considered as part of the future reporting round

Method B - Baseline set in the past

Figure 6 Baseline Method B ndash as a state set in the past (often when monitoring first started)

22 The History of Marine Animal Populations (HMAP) which is the historical component of the Census of Marine Life (CoML) is a research

project focused on this approach Interpretation of changes in marine populations over the past 500-2000 years is providing researchers with

a baseline that extends back long before the advent of modern technology or before significant human impact on ecosystems

23 This type of ecosystem reconstruction modelling work is being developed within academia such as at British Columbia Dalhousie and

Chicago Universities



The second method is to set a baseline as a past state (Figure 6) based on a time-series dataset for a specific species or habitat24 Expert judgement is needed to select the period in the dataset which is considered to reflect least impacted conditions this may be the date of the first data point in a time series provided this is considered the least impacted state of the time series It is important to note that this first data point is not intended to represent an unimpactedreference state but simply when research or data recording on a particular species population or habitat began

It is a robust approach in the sense that it is based on a time series of scientific data which should indicate how the state of a feature has changed over time however it can be limited by the quality and quantity of the data (for example if the time series is rather short) It is straightforward and comprehensible but resultant targets run the risk of being based on an already significantly impacted scenario This is sometimes referred to as the lsquoshifting baselines syndromersquo25 where each generation at the beginning of their career redefines what it is they understand to be a lsquohealthyrsquo marine environment which may represent significant changes from the original state of the system Each time series needs expert evaluation to determine whether the first pointperiod (or some other pointperiod) in the time series is to be selected as the reference point taking into account the changes in associated pressures over the time period and other relevant factors

Method C - Current baseline

Figure 7 Baseline Method C ndash as current state eg at inception of a policy or first assessment

24 This approach was used for some species groups for a 2010 UK marine assessment (Charting Progress 2 the second UK government

report on the status of UK seas)

25 As described by Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries Trends in Ecology and Evolution

10(10)430


42

Finally baselines can be set as the date of inception of a particular environmental policy or the first assessment of state (Figure 7) This approach was used in the context of the Habitats Directive where the date when the Directive came into force was used by many European countries as the baseline for favourable reference values26 This type of baseline is typically used with the objective of preventing any further deterioration from the current state there can additionally be a target to improve the state from such a baseline (towards a reference state)

Although this approach is quick practical and transparent it is not scientifically robust as the current state may represent a wide range of conditions across European waters This approach could be appropriate where it is determined that GES has already been achieved and hence only requires ldquomaintenancerdquo under the MSFD However it is not considered appropriate where deterioration or degradation has already occurred In addition there is a significant risk of succumbing to lsquoshifting baseline syndromersquo as described above This method is generally more appropriate for use in setting baselines for pressures

The use of expert judgement

Expert judgement can be used to supplement information that is available from the other methods or allow disparate information to be brought together to provide an expert interpretation for example on the types of species that might reasonably be expected to occur in a community The application of expert judgement should where possible follow predefined rules such as

- expert judgement needs to be scientifically sound and comprehensible for everyone concerned

- an appropriate number of competent experts preferably from a majority of Contracting Parties needs to be involved

- the applied procedure and the outcome need to be transparent and appropriately documented

If the implementation of such rules cannot be guaranteed the results of this expert judgement would not be reproducible and reliable and should therefore be avoided On this condition reliance on expert judgement is most appropriate when combined with the other baseline-setting methodologies (particularly Method A) as opposed to being a distinct baseline-setting technique Quality assessment through a panel of experts is always more preferable to using single expert judgement ndash confidence in the conclusions is likely to increase with the numbers of experts consulted Expert judgement in target-setting is particularly valuable in the context of incomplete scientific evidence

332 Target-setting approaches

Once an appropriate baseline has been established environmental targets (for state impacts and pressures) can then be generated in line with the methodologies outlined below Limits27 can also be set as alternatives to setting state targets (using the same methods) but conceptually the use of limits in defining biodiversity state goals is not considered to adequately reflect the aspirations of the MSFD Setting limits is more appropriate in the context of pressure-levels beyond which ecological targets are unlikely to be met

As the Marine Stategy Framework Directive clearly seeks to encompass sustainable uses of the marine environment for present and future generations and some of these uses at least at a local scale generate

26 The favourable reference values of the Habitats Directive are as a minimum the ecological state when the Directive came into force

However in the Article 17 guidance on assessment and reporting under the Habitats Directive it is acknowledged that historic data and

expert judgement may also be used to help define these values

27 Task Group 1 defined a limit as lsquothe value of state that if violated is taken as evidence that there is an unacceptable risk of serious or

irreversible harmrsquo



impacts on biodiversity it is necessary to consider state targets for GES as accommodating some level of impact (in qualitative andor spatial terms)28 State impact and pressure targets can be generated using the methodologies outlined below

Several different lsquotarget-setting optionsrsquo exist

Method 1 Directional or trend-based targets29






Figure 8 Target-setting Method 1 ndash directional or trend-based (here illustrated as an improvement compared with current state)

Directional or trend-based targets represent an improvement towards a more desirable state (eg a larger population of a particular species or good condition of a habitat type over an increasing area) (Figure 8) They can be articulated simply as a direction of change or as both direction and rate of change of an environmental parameter This approach is relatively practical and straightforward Significantly it does nrsquoot require a great deal of historical data and is useful when complex interactions among various biodiversity components make setting of absolute targets particularly challenging for example elements for marine food webs (under Descriptor 4) However its weakness lies in the fact that it doesnrsquot allow for clear assessments of status (because no end point is specified) It also does not allow for a clear assessment of whether GES has been achieved as a slight trend might be seen as ldquomeeting the targetrdquo but it might still be very far off from GES This can be overcome by expressing an improving trend up to a defined limit (eg the carrying capacity of a species) and then an acceptable deviation from this higher limit

28 The Directive has an objective to phase out pollution (Art 12b) which is in line with OSPAR objectives on hazardous substances and

eutrophication However continued sustainable use of the marine environment needs to encompass certain lsquonon-pollutingrsquo impacts (eg

physical loss of habitat from the placement of infrastructure of oil and gas exploration renewable energy production and coastal facilities)

29 [Needs further consideration of how to define a limit for any trend-based target ndash see HELCOM approach for species population trends]


44

Method 2 Target set as the baseline

Figure 9 Target-setting Method 2 ndashtarget is set as the baseline (here two examples for baselines are illustrated past and current baselines)

The target can be set as equivalent to the baseline (whether that be current state or a past known state) (Figure 9)


Figure 10 Target-setting Method 3 ndashtarget as a deviation from a baseline (here illustrated as a defined deviation from a reference or past state)

Targets can be set that represent a specified deviation from a chosen baseline which is typically the reference state or past state (Figure 10) but can also be in relation to a current state when the target should be for an improved state rather than a deteriorated state For example a target can be set as the percentage of baseline



habitat extent or species population size (or aspect of habitat or species condition eg seagrass shoot density) These types of targets can be set as a percentage range or single percentage figure

333 Coordinated selection of species and habitats

Selection of specific species or habitats as proxies to assess broader biodiversity components should be made carefully according to well defined criteria and coordinated among Contracting Parties sharing a sub-region Threatened and declining specieshabitats can reflect some pressures very well and benefit from historical monitoring data However more common or widespread species and habitats should also be considered as a result of their higher representativity in terms of abundance covered area and functional role and the fact that they are more easily monitored ie in terms of occurrence abundance and persistence These common species and habitats enable greater comparability between Regions or Sub-Regions

Biodiversity hot-spots for example most habitat engineering species should also be considered both in terms of priority areas to be assessed and a relevant criterion for selecting species and habitats Monitoring the area covered and the densitybiomass of individuals of such engineering species may also be a good proxy as a first approach to assess a particular species or habitat where the associated communities are well known

Monitoring for declining species should be undertaken at adapted spatial and temporal scales to ensure that monitoring itself does not contribute to the decline

34 Approaches to setting targets for pressures In order to maintain or achieve GES for biodiversity aspects of the Directive (Descriptors 1 2 4 and 6) it will be necessary to reduce impacts on biodiversity from pressures arising from human activities It is therefore considered necessary to set targets for pressures preferably in close association with stateimpact-based targets The level of such reductions in pressures should be a reflection of what is considered to be GES (Art 9) and the quality and proportion of environmental targets set for the criteria used for the assessment of these Descriptors (Art 10)

Whilst it is possible to set targets for pressures directly related to Table 2 of Annex III to the Directive and for the pressure-based criteria of the Commission Decision such an approach will not necessarily lead to the necessary reductions in impacts needed to achieve state-based targets for the biodiversity Descriptors To achieve the latter the following is needed

a Pressure-based targets should be linked wherever possible to impacts on biodiversity components such that reductions in pressures lead to the desired reductions in impacts the level of evidence needed for this link will vary and may be inferred from situations outside of the regionsub-region being considered

b As the biodiversity assessments (D1 D2 D4 D6) are focused on the assessment of specific species functional groups and habitat types at a defined assessment scale the associated targets for pressures should also relate directly to these components and scales

c The alleviation of pressures will need to be achieved through measures to manage human activities The setting of pressure targets should therefore be set in a way which will form a clear basis for drawing up measures by 2015 (these could be operational targets according to Annex IV of the Directive)

Pressure-based targets can be expected to focus on


46

a Reducing the spatial footprint of the pressure or

b Reducing the temporal footprint of the pressure or

c Reducing the intensity of the pressure or

d Some combination of the three options above

Setting appropriate targets because some of the pressures associated with impacts on biodiversity fall under the responsibility of other OSPAR committees liaison is needed between the relevant groups in order to establish pressure targets that will lead to the necessary reductions in impacts on biodiversity

The pressures provided in Table 2 of Annex III to the Directive are likely to provide the main focus and indeed include the pressures which are widely considered to have most impact on biodiversity (such as physical loss and damage removal of target and non-target species nutrient enrichment and contamination) The list in Table 2 of Annex III of the MSFD is indicative OSPAR (EIHA and ICG-COBAM) has developed a more comprehensive list of pressures (provided at Annex 84) and individual assessments of particular species and habitats should consider this wider list as some may be significant at a local level or for particular species and habitats

To effectively assess the risks to biodiversity from pressures it is helpful to map the distribution and intensity of these pressures at a regionalsub-regional scale and to assess the possible levels of impact from such pressures This approach was initially considered in the 2009 OSPAR BA-6 Utrecht assessment30 and has since been trialled by HELCOM (HOLAS assessment31) and is being further developed for parts of the North Sea under the Harmony project 32 Whilst there remain technical and data challenges as well as challenges in terms of consistency with existing requirements in doing this work it may nevertheless provides an effective approach to assessing the scale of risk to biodiversity to assess where pressures may need to be reduced and to facilitate an ecosystem-based approach to the management of large sea areas The results of such work may require further scrutiny

The potentiality of pressure targets became evident in the OSPAR GES4BIO workshop33 where several Contracting Parties proposed a diverse set of pressure indicators (some of them reflected in Table 2 of Annex III of the MSFD) This is an aspect of the MSFD that will need further development in subsequent iterations of the Advice Manual

35 Assessment scales In order to determine what GES is for species habitats and ecosystems to set appropriate targets and to assess overall status it is necessary to clearly define the scale at which the assessments are to be undertaken This is because given the same criteria and stateimpact-based thresholds for assessment adoption of different scales can lead to markedly differing outcomes for the assessment For example assessment of intertidal mudflats at the scale of a single estuary (as is done for the Water Framework Directive) can lead to a very different

30 OSPAR (2009) Report of the Utrecht Workshop - Regional assessment Netherlands 2009 (OSPAR Publication 2010468)

31 Holistic assessment of the Baltic marine environment including a thematic assessment of hazardous substances (HELCOM HOLAS)

32 Add web link 33 OSPAR Workshop on approaches to determining GES for biodiversity Utrecht 23-24 November 2010 (OSPAR Publication 2011553)



judgement on their status (for that water body) when compared with a similar assessment of all mudflats in a Member State (as done for the Habitats Directive) or at the level of the North Sea (a sub-region for MSFD)34

Following the ecosystem-based approach required for implementation of the MSFD the assessment of biodiversity components should be undertaken at ecologically relevant scales taking into account the cumulative pressures and their impacts from human activities (Art 81b Annex III Table 2) and based on the criteria provided for assessment in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators (eg habitatspecies distribution species population size habitat extent and habitatpopulation condition)

ICESJRC Task Group reports for the relevant Descriptors provide useful advice regarding assessment scale (for more detailed information for the biodiversity Descriptors see Annex 85) It points out that the MSFD formally operates at three different geographic levels the Marine Region the Sub-region and Subdivisions The first two are defined within the Directive (Art 4) while it is up to the Member States to apply any subdivisions whether formally recognised or not To facilitate aggregation of assessments for the biodiversity Descriptors and with other Descriptors the scales for biodiversity assessment should be linked to the system of regions sub-regions and subdivisions provided for general implementation of the Directive (Art 4) in particular because GES is to be assessed at the level of the region or sub-region (Art 35) and because assessment of species and habitats for Descriptor 1 should be directly linked to assessments of food webs (Descriptor 4) and sea-floor integrity (Descriptor 6) and to the assessments of impacts in particular from non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) commercial fishing (Descriptor 3) nutrient enrichment (Descriptor 5) hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) contamination (Descriptor 8) and thermal discharges (Descriptor 11)

34 Note in this example the assessment criteria and target (threshold) values under WFD and the Habitats Directive are not identical to those

in MSFD thus further giving the possibility of differing outcomes for the assessment of the same habitat type


48

Box 3 Defining Assessment Scale

Defining scale can be confusing because this term is relevant in different ways depending on several different aspects of the Directive Thus scale should be considered in relation to

i Assessment of state (in relation to the definition of GES and associated state targets) of one or several biodiversity components as GES is determined at the level of the regionsub-region (Art 3(5)) These may be linked by trophic relation for example in Descriptor 4 or functional relation such as between species and habitats (cf Habitats Directive) This aspect could be expressed as an lsquoecological assessment arearsquo (or aggregated sub-areas) for reporting purposes

ii Management measures which can be considered at either a local scale to avoid missing or masking cumulative local impacts that could affect the overall quality status at larger scales or at a broad scale to manage efficiently biodiversity components or pressures that operate over large areas of a regionsub-region (as required by MSFD)

iii Monitoring to assess state expressed as the spatial and temporal resolution of data These resolutions (number of sampling stations accuracy of remote detection sampling frequencies etc) are likely to be a compromise between high resolution which enable a very accurate but expensive assessment and a more pragmatic approach identifying a resolution in accordance with available resources which can then be used to define assessment scale and data needs

When considering a single species habitat or pressure relevant scale depends on which parameters are needed for assessing state For example physical hydrological chemical and biological parameters relevant for habitat state usually need different spatial and temporal resolutions of data in order to enable a comprehensive and integrated assessment These different resolutions must be compatible to enable an effective assessment For example resolutions to monitor oxygen concentration (to detect anoxichypoxic conditions) pelagicbenthic primary production and communities of species of a habitat should be carefully defined to enable a comprehensive and integrated assessment at a chosen scale

For the same parameter spatial and temporal resolutions of data needs will depend on natural or anthropogenic variability Thus the degree of spatial complexity (or patchiness) may directly influence the distribution and resolution of data needs for an effective assessment For example distributional range for seagrass beds or Lophelia reefs can be assessed using a grid (occurrence per defined area unit) but the area covered by these habitats should first be assessed at a finer scale as the sum of area unit where the habitat occurs might be too coarse an approximation of the real areal extent



PART II Application of Principles to Biodiversity To deal with the complexities of the marine environment and differences in advice or approach required the following sections have been organised around different biodiversity components that are deemed to be of greatest relevance to assessing biodiversity and subsequently grouped into species and habitats (see 13 for further details)

When considering the indicators for the different biodiversity components it is essential to bear in mind that these might be applicable to one or more of the biodiversity descriptors considered here

The structure of Part II looks at the application of the principles for setting targets and identifying indicators for the different biodiversity components described above These can then be used by Contracting Parties to assess the individual biodiversity Descriptors (1 2 4 and 6) using the Commission Decision criteria and indicators

The species part goes into more detail with regard to the Commission Decision indicators for all species groups since it was felt that for each of these indicators an explanation was required with regard to the pros and cons of methods for baseline-setting and target-setting Therefore the structure of the species section is less aggregated than for the habitats section


50

4 Habitats 41 Introduction

411 Seabed habitats

Seabed habitat types are very varied across the North-East Atlantic ranging from broadscale predominant habitat types (such as lsquoShallow sublittoral sandrsquo) to the lsquospecialrsquo35 habitats (such as biogenic reef) which tend to be spatially discrete and historically more vulnerable to human pressures However the identification of baselines and the setting of targets for these habitat types should in principle be similar hence the advice in Chapter 3 applies equally to all those seabed habitat types listed in Annex 86 to this manual

412 Water column habitats

Pelagic systems are very dynamic and water masses may travel long distances with vertical and horizontal mixing depending on physical characteristics acting at different geographic scales Plankton species can be used as indicators of hydroclimatic conditions or water movements since plankton have fast turn-over rates and therefore respond quickly to changes in the environment Moreover plankton play an important role in the functioning of marine ecosystems and in biogeochemical cycles because they are a key component of the trophodynamics of pelagic ecosystems

In general most of the information regarding the biological quality status of pelagic habitats is on phytoplankton in relation to eutrophication assessment (Descriptor 5) Regarding zooplankton several indicators using long-term monitoring datasets exist but they are currently not used within existing policy frameworks

413 Assessment scales and ecological assessment areas

The Directive indicates that hydrological oceanographic and biogeographic features should be taken into account in defining the regions and sub-regions as set outin Art 4 (Art 32) These factors are equally important in determining the ecological characteristics (communities of species) of seabed and water column habitats as they provide biogeographic variation across the range of abiotic habitats

There are many different aspects of assessment scale eg habitats occur at a different scale to many of the pressures acting upon them with respect to the scale required to determine GES this would depend on the scale of the habitat within a particular assessment area In practice this would require consideration on a case by case basis It could help in this consideration to separate the different needs (eg for monitoring establishing measures) and to have a method for selecting assessment scale for cases of species of habitats using a set of criteria

As the biological communities are strongly influenced by hydrological and oceanographic conditions it is recommended that ecologically relevant assessment scales for habitats are determined on the basis of these water mass characteristics this is sometimes referred to as a bioregional approach The parameters that most influence the characteristics of water masses are sea temperature salinity mixing characteristics frontal systems and turbiditywater clarity as species are tolerant (adapted) to particular conditions for each of these parameters Also of importance are the ocean currents and general flow of water (eg the North Atlantic Drift upwelling off Portugal) which influence supply of food and larval dispersal

35 The term lsquospecialrsquo in the MSFD is used for habitats listed for protection under Community legislation or international agreements



On the basis of a review of existing relevant regional systems an analysis of the hydrological and oceanographic characteristics of the North-East Atlantic36 and a review of the OSPAR 2009 Utrecht Workshop on Regional biodiversity assessment held in the Netherlands 2009 for the QSR 201037 it is recommended that

a Assessment scales for habitats are smaller than and nested within sub-regions to

i Reflect the changes in ecological character of communities within the same abiotic habitat across a sub-region (due to changes in temperature salinity and other factors across sub-regions)

ii Better accommodate links to management of human activities and their pressures which can differ significantly across a sub-region

iii Facilitate aggregation of assessments up to the level of sub-regions

b Ecological assessment areas are defined as recommended by ICESJRC Task Group 1 for each sub-region using hydrological and oceanographic characteristics in particular sea temperature salinity mixing characteristics frontal systems and turbiditywater clarity (but also depth currents wave action and nutrient characteristics where appropriate) to define water masses of similar overall character within each sub-region The water mass characteristics should consequently be reflected in similarities in community composition of both seabed and water column habitats

c The boundaries between such areas should wherever possible be based on marked changes in these parameters but where changes are more gradual more pragmatic factors such as the physiographic shape of the coastline and administrative boundaries may be used provided that the set of areas within a sub-region overall are ecologically-based

The identification of a set of ecological assessment areas within a sub-region provides the basis for assessment of the habitats occurring within the area (see Annex 86 for a list) as it provides a specific geographical area in which to determine the extent of impacts and whether GES and associated targets have been met Assessment of ecological status for WFD (water bodies) and favourable conservation status for Habitats Directive (bioregions of Member States waters) use a defined spatial scale (area) for all assessments As such areas may span several Member States waters there is a need to develop practical approaches to undertaking the assessments as are currently applied for some wide-ranging species (eg harbour porpoise in the North Sea) to meet the requirements for a sub-regional assessment of GES

414 Proposal for ecological assessment areas in the Greater North Sea

Based on the approach described above the Greater North Sea sub-region has been provisionally divided into five areas for assessment of habitats

i ChannelLa Manche

ii Southern North Sea38

iii Northern North Sea

iv NorwegianSwedish coast

v Kattegat

The characteristics of each area are given in Table 2

36 ICG-COBAM(1) 1151 37 OSPAR Publication 2010468 38 Features of the Wadden Sea may require separate consideration


52

Table 2 Characteristics of the provisional biodiversity assessment areas of the Greater North Sea

Channel Southern North Sea

Northern North Sea

Norwegian Swedish coast

Kattegat

Stratification Stratified Stratified

Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed

1 light penetration 3-9m 3-9m 9-15m 3-9m 3-6m

Wave penetration 40-60m 10-50m 40-80m 30-80m 10-20m

Main depth range 30-70m 20-40m 50-130m 200-500m lt50m

Temperature (bottom) - June 13-15 ˚C 9-15 ˚C 7-8 ˚C 7 ˚C 9-12 ˚C

Salinity (winter) 34-35 ppt 24-35 ppt 33-35 ppt 24-33 ppt 16-18 ppt

The boundaries between the areas are identified where possible from marked changes in physical and oceanographic character the boundaries are indicative and may need further consideration by the relevant Contracting Parties

i Western Channel ndash Ushant Front

ii Dover Strait ndash Narrowest point as per Water Framework Directive ecoregion boundary

iii Mid North Sea ndash Flamborough Front and depth contour

iv North SeaNorwegian trench ndash western edge of trench

v Northern Kattegat ndash Depth and salinity changes

vi Southern Kattegat ndash Salinity changes and the Drogden and Darss sills in the Sound and Belt Sea39

vii Northern North Sea ndash follows end of Norwegian Trench and transition to cold Arctic waters at 600m

viii Northern Scotland ndash changes to more stable conditions in salinity temperature and greater wave action

39 Based on a proposal in Andersen et al 2010 Delineation scenarios for the Kattegat data availability and management support tools

Report by DHI for the Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning Denmark Supported by mean salinity data (Figure 4) in ICG-COBAM

(1) 1151



Figure 11 Map showing provisional biodiversity assessment areas of the Greater North Sea

Whilst it is recognized that ecosystems show a continuum of change and hence any boundary applied in the above approach is of necessity somewhat artificial the use of hydrological and oceanographic conditions to define water masses and their boundaries offers the most ecologically relevant way to determine suitable assessment areas thereby facilitating the ecosystem-based approach required by the MSFD For practical application where such areas span several Member State waters it should be possible to develop assessment approaches that facilitate assessments of each administrative area

415 Further development

It is recommended that a similar approach for the other sub-regions of the North-East Atlantic region should be followed

Whilst these areas of the Greater North Sea provide an initial method for delimiting areas to determine GES and set appropriate targets by 2012 it is recommended that

a They are validated using biological data to assess the appropriateness of the areas and boundaries selected

b Further consideration is given to the links to the management of human activities and their pressures

c Further consideration is given to the links to other Descriptors to develop where possible assessment areas that are compatible across the Descriptors (including for the species assessed as functional groups)

d They are reviewed and if necessary adjusted in the light of practical application and further scientific evidence before the second assessment in 2018


54

42 Setting baselines

421 Setting baselines for seabed habitats

Baseline-setting Method A ndash This is the most appropriate method for setting baselines for seabed habitats for the criteria and indicators set out in the Commission Decision on GES criteria For seabed habitats this means a baseline where the condition extent and distribution of the habitat when pressures directly (eg physical abrasion) and indirectly (eg removal of typical species) affecting habitat state are removednegligible These conditions can be generated by a combination of methods outlined in Section 3 ie existing reference states (Ai) historical reference states (Aii) and modelling of reference states (Aiii)

a Method Ai (Existing reference states) is a scientifically robust transparent and comprehensible method and should be the preferred approach to setting baselines where it is possible to find areas where anthropogenic influences on seabed habitats are negligible This may be particularly challenging in the inshoreshelf environment much of which is under active use as such this approach may be more easily applied to the deep seaoffshore areas There may also be significant differences across biogeographic regions in terms of numbers of reference areas which may limit the application of this approach40 This approach is likely to be most helpful in evaluating reference state for criteria pertaining to habitat condition and community condition (Criteria 16 and 62) as opposed to criteria such as extent (Criteria 15) As Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) begin to recover to a less impacted state (if adequately managed) the utility of method Ai should increase

b Method Aii (Historical reference states) should be used where possible and in combination with Ai and Aiii (as appropriate) The efficacy of this approach depends on data quality and time period over which historical data exists It is particularly important for the criteria habitat distribution (14) and habitat extent (15) as these may have changed substantially compared with current situations (especially for biogenic reef habitats) However data on the historical extent and condition of benthic habitat types is often limited A full picture of historical condition is unlikely to be available for any benthic habitat but data on certain aspects of state may be particularly useful Some criteria are more amenable to this baseline setting approach than others for example there may be more historical information on biogenic reef extent (Criteria 15) than reef condition (Criteria 16 62) For sediment habitat types few historical datasets exist particularly in offshore areas and for deep-sea benthic habitats Longer data series are always more preferable to single data points as the latter run the risk of missing natural variability and cycles More specifically it is important to consider the environmental conditions that prevailed at the time of data collection and how these may vary from current climatic and physiographic conditions This method is best applied in combination with expert judgement (for example taxonomic expertise) Its transparency as a methodology is lower than Ai but higher than Aiii

c Method Aiii (Modelling of reference states) should also be used where appropriate and feasible (eg where applicable modelling projects are already underway) As above this approach may be more applicable to certain criteria than others Modelling food web dynamics of these habitats may well be challenging as the processes are highly complex The success of modelling will be dependent on the parameters of the model and the quality accuracy of the input data and will require expert- and monitoring data-validation of the model and parameters used It is also important to ensure that the scale at which the model is produced and the scale at which sampling occurs are the same Its limitations include its lack of (perceived) transparency by stakeholders This method may have

40 The same habitat may vary considerably across different biogeographic region ndash oceanographic variables may play as significant a role in determining community composition as human pressures



relevance in predicting the state of habitats into the future under scenarios of reduced pressures and climate change

Baseline-setting Method B - Using a baseline set as a past state is not as scientifically robust as method A and presents a risk of lsquoshifting baselines syndromersquo It should therefore only be used where Method A cannot be applied and preferably as a starting point for setting trend-based targets as opposed to absolute value targets or targets which represent deviations from baselines Most benthic habitats were already significantly modified before samplingresearch programmes began Using a time series of data is significantly more robust than using a single data point to set a baseline This is particularly relevant for some biogenic reef habitats which can experience high natural variability over time Time series data on intertidal habitats is often readily available but in deeper habitats this is not often the case Using different past states across many biological components or indicators can become particularly complex and lacking in transparency This approach may be the most pragmatic where short timescales for setting targets exist (ie by July 2012)

Baseline setting Method C - Setting a baseline as a current state is only appropriate where no past data is available and is most applicable to trends targets (as above) To be scientifically robust this method should take account of the pressures which prevail at the current time and describe the current state in relation to these pressures This approach can perpetuate the lsquoshifting baselines syndromersquo outlined in Section 3 and does not adequately address the requirements of Descriptor 1 to have biodiversity lsquoin line with prevailing physiographic and geographic conditionsrsquo However it has been used for seabed habitats for instance in the Habitats Directive as a means to assess the need for lsquono further deteriorationrsquo in status with the expectation that further improvements in status can be aimed for (ie trend-based targets) where there is evidence of deterioration in any of the assessment criteria

Expert judgement - Expert judgement is recommended as an integral part of the baseline-setting approach for seabed habitats particularly in conjunction with Method A

422 Setting baselines for pelagic habitats

There is knowledge on baselines for phytoplankton related to eutrophication assessment (algal blooms and chlorophyll a) and in some areas on zooplankton Baselines need to be developed for all pelagic organism groups based on available or new data and expert opinion The preferred method to set a baseline is method B (baseline set in the past) whenever data are available or Method C (current baseline) where only recent data are available A variation to Method C (current state Cii) may also be appropriate to add a prediction of the modelled effects of measures implemented under current policies to the current status and set this as a baseline Irrespective of the method chosen there will always be a need for expert judgement

43 Setting state targets

431 Setting state targets for benthic habitats

GES state targets for benthic habitats should ideally be defined as a deviation from a baseline (Target-setting Method 3) with that baseline set as reference state (determined through Methods Ai Aii or Aiii) This is considered to be the most scientifically robust approach and one that aims for a target level of recovery of destroyed andor impacted features in line with the requirements of Descriptor 1 (ie prevailing physiographic geographic and climatic conditions) and Descriptor 6 If this approach is not feasible for all habitats within the 2012 time frames set out in the Directive then alternative options may need to be pursued ndash for example using Baseline-setting Methods B and C in combination with expert judgement

The specific state targets which are set should account for the natural variability of the habitat type and its potential for recovery The way in which the targets are set for benthic habitats in terms of the actual deviation from reference state can be underpinned by science (especially in defining acceptable habitat quality (condition)


56

or set purely on the basis of policy aspirations (eg for extent of habitat which should be in an acceptable condition) Percentage targets for benthic habitat extent and condition can be based on the biological needs of individual benthic species communities and ecosystems so they are scientifically credible and robust (Rondinini in press)

It is important to reiterate that the way in which the baseline for benthic habitats is developed is as relevant as the chosen deviation from this baseline (ie how the target is ultimately set) It is also strongly recommended that an integrated approach to target-setting ndash combining condition extent and range ndash be developed across Contracting Parties and that targets are set as consistently and uniformly as possible across the North-East Atlantic

432 Setting state targets for pelagic habitats

The type of target that is needed (eg direction limit value) depends on the type of indicator Since there are few existing indicators for the pelagic habitat it is difficult to specify preferred methods

In the case that the indicator relates to the abundance of a certain species the target would best be defined as a range around a desirable state or around the current state (Method 3) This range has to be dynamic taking into account seasonal fluctuations as well as other fluctuations such as long-term inter-annual fluctuations due to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) regime shifts etc

In the case that the indicator relates to the numberabundanceproduction of species at the lower end of the food web (ie food for other parts of the food web such as prey species ndash Descriptor 4 indicator 431) the target could be set as a lower limitthreshold

44 Existing European indicators and state targets

441 For benthic habitats

The existing European indicators and state targets for benthic habitats mainly relate to requirements for reporting under the Habitats Directive Water Framework Directive and habitats on the OSPAR List Whilst they apply to a subset of benthic habitats as opposed to the full representative range of benthic habitats to be assessed under the MSFD they are important to consider in terms of both how the targets are set (method) and in relation to the values in use for these policies

a Targets under the Habitats Directive (HD)

The following guidance is given for assessments under the Habitats Directive (HD)41 lsquoFavourable conservation statusrsquo (FCS) is the overall objective for all habitat types and species of community interest and it is defined in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive FCS can be described as a situation where a habitat type or species is prospering (in both quality and extentpopulation) and with good prospects to do so in future as well The fact that a habitat or species is not threatened (ie not faced by any direct extinction risk) does not mean that it is in favourable conservation status The target of the directive is defined in positive terms oriented towards a a favourable situation which needs to be defined reached and maintained Favourable conservation status is defined by four parameters or criteria for each habitat type range area structure and function and future prospects Range and area require the setting of threshold values which are referred to as lsquofavourable reference valuesrsquo Favourable reference values for range and area must be at least that when the Directive came into force but information on historic distribution may be used when defining the favourable reference value for range and

41 Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Explanatory notes and guidelines for the period 2007-2012 Draft

February 2011 European Commission



area and best expert judgement may be used to define it in absence of other data For many Member States FCS is largely determined by the status of habitats at the time the Habitats Directive came into force nationally and the use of historical data is minimal As such in the case of benthic habitats and species that were extinct or extirpated (in a region) or significantly modified before 1992 (when the Directive was adopted) targets set under the Habitiats Directive can be limited particularly in terms of system recovery (emphasised in Article 1 of MSFD) For example European oyster beds which disappeared in the North Sea before 1992 would not be considered in the FCS assessments for the Directive However despite these shortcomings setting baselines in this way (Baseline-setting Method C) is an option where there is insufficient data to support Baseline-setting Methods A and B

Moverover for those deep-sea rock and biogenic reef habitats which are subject to few pressures (eg certain coral reefs and deep-sea sponge aggregations) the current condition and extent could be used as a baseline (determined through modelling and mapping techniques) (ieBaseline-setting Method C) and a limit (as opposed to target) could be set at this current condition and extent in line with the HD approach (Target-setting Method 2)

For each parametercriteria there are specified thresholds to assess whether the habitat is at FCS or falls below FCS (into one of two classes Unfavourable ndash inadequate and Unfavourable ndash bad) The thresholds for each parametercriteria are a mixture of trend-based values absolute values and qualitative descriptions The same values are to be used for all habitat types The assessments adopt the worst class from the four parametercriteria to provide the overall assessment classification The assessments are undertaken at the scale of the Member State but this is split into biogeographic regions if the Member State lies in two or more defined biogeographic regions

With the strong similarities of the criteria between HD and MSFD and the contribution that HD habitats can make to assessments under MSFD it is relevant to consider the approaches and values used for FCS assessment noting

i The boundary between FCS and the Unfavourable-inadequate class needs to be defined for application in MSFD

ii The definition of reference range needs to be developed to allow for a suitable target value (deviation from reference value) to be set

iii Greater flexibility in a deviation from reference values for each criterion may be appropriate (ie the boundary between good and poor) to accommodate sustainable uses of marine waters

b Targets under OSPAR (Texel-Faial criteria)

Habitats are listed as lsquoThreatened andor Decliningrsquo under the OSPAR Convention when they meet the criteria outlined in OSPAR Agreement 2003-13 Criteria for the identification of species and habitats in need of protection and their method of application (Texel-Faial Criteria) (One of these criteria relates to decline defined as lsquoa significant decline in extent or quality The decline may be historic recent or current The decline can occur in the whole OSPAR maritime area or regionallyrsquo

Where a habitat has declined by 15 or more of its former natural distribution in the OSPAR maritime area it is defined as lsquoSignificantly Declinedrsquo This 15 threshold can effectively be considered to act as a target for the distribution and extent criteria For example to achieve 85 (of the rangeextent) (Target-setting Method 3) of historical (reference) state (Baseline-setting Method A)


58

c Targets under the Water Framework Directive

Certain Water Framework Directive (WFD) indicators and targets on species abundance diversity and composition (for example for macroalgae and angiosperms or benthic invertebrate fauna) are appropriate for application under MSFD for benthic habitats in the coastal environment It is recommended that these be applied as appropriate in relation to MSFD criteria that encompass habitat condition (16 62) as appropriate The WFD baselines were determined through Baseline-setting Method A and the targets through Target-setting Method 3 A specific guidance document has been produced by the Commission for setting the reference conditions (baseline-setting Method A) as well as a boundary-setting protocol and boundary harmonization among countriesmethodologies42

When applying certain WFD indicators and targets for MSFD purposes in the coastal environment the following considerations must be taken into account

bull The assessment in WFD is carried out at the ldquowater bodyrdquo level which is a much smaller assessment scale than is the required by MSFD

bull Baseline-setting and target-setting under WFD is determined after a typological subdivision of water bodies This typological subdivision can be similar for all Biololgical Quality Elements (BQE) or BQE-specific (ie a typological subdivision for macroinvertebrates and different typological subdivisions for macroalgae and for phytoplankton)

bull The baselines and targets set at a specific type may not have a direct application outside this type (ie beyond the 1 nm limit)

bull In the case of macroinvertebrates the assessment methods have only been developed for soft bottoms (not hard substrates)

bull In the case of macroalgae the majority of assessment methods only assess the intertidal area

d Summary

Existing indicators and state targets under the Habitats Directive and OSPAR focus principally on aspects such as distribution and extent and do not currently adequately describe habitat condition or community composition aspirations In the context of the MSFD this means that there are gaps in terms of Descriptor 1 on biodiversity for criteria 16 on Habitat Condition as well as criteria under Descriptor 4 on food webs and Descriptor 6 on sea-floor integrity In contrast targets under the WFD focus on aspects of ecological condition and quality but have not addressed issues of quantity and scale in the way that is required under the MSFD Moreover it should be emphasised that the habitat types and associated targets currently considered under OSPAR Habitats Directive and WFD may not be the most appropriate to representapply to the predominant habitats to be assessed under the MSFD (see Annex 86)

442 For pelagic habitats

Existing indicators under OSPAR and WFD only concern phytoplankton

The OSPAR target for eg chlorophyll a is a deviation from a natural background level (Method 3) ldquoMaximum and mean phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations during the growing season should remain below a justified area-specific deviation from background not exceeding 50rdquo This is a target that was set by policy-makers and there is no scientific basis to define the boundary between good and not good OSPAR uses expert judgement combined with modelling to determine area-specific baselines 42 European Comission Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (200060EC) Guidance Document nordm 14 on the Intercalibration process 2008-2011 Technical Report -2011-045 (httpcircaeuropaeuPublicircenvwfdlibraryl=framework_directiveguidance_documentsintercalibration_1_EN_10_ampa=d)



The WFD also uses target-setting Method 3 The target is expressed as a specific value of the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) which is the ratio of reference level (baseline setting Method A) and target level For the assessment methods of phytoplankton in coastal waters it is not accepted that determination of reference conditions and the EQR boundary (or target) is made by expert judgement a clear relationship between these levels and the pressures (nutrients organic matter or others) has to be demonstrated with a regression model If this is not done the method is considered non-compliant and it is not approved by the European Commission

443 Other advice relating to pelagic habitats

Regarding the Commission Decision indicators 141 142 151 and 152 which relate to habitat distribution and extent are most likely to be irrelevant for pelagic habitats

It is advised to further define pelagic habitats for instance in the current coastal shelf and oceanic predominant habitat categories A further refinement could take into account mixed waters stratification frontal systems etc as these features are ecologically relevant It should be noted that boundaries between pelagic habitats are typically be dynamic eg depending on season or riverine outflow Another useful option is to define functional habitat types for example spawning areas (as also indicated in the Commission Decision)

The assemblage of species that makes up the phytoplankton found in coastal waters in the North-East Atlantic during the spring and summer is highly variable This means that there are no unique fixed assemblages of species that can be used to detect changes in floristic composition Furthermore there are no species that can be used as universal indicators of human pressure such as nutrient enrichment An alternative approach (that of using life-forms or functional groups of plankton species as the basis for assessing the status of pelagic habitats) could be appropriate The grouping species into life forms or functional groups (such as those that require silicate for growth and those that do not) summarises a large amount of data on phytoplankton species and means that existing datasets can be used The utility of this approach has been demonstrated using Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) data from the North Sea and the scientific rationale has been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature

Regarding zooplankton several indicators using long-term monitoring datasets exist but they are currently not used within existing policy frameworks The CPR survey is the largest plankton monitoring programme in the world and has monitored the presence or abundance of more than 400 plankton species on a monthly basis over the North Atlantic since 1946 Zooplankton indicators have been derived from the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey dataset to monitor the dynamic regime based on (i) abundance of individual taxa (ii) functional attributes of the ecosystem (iii) species assemblages and (iv) larval fish survival (Beaugrand et al 2005) Indicators based on functional attributes may detect subtle changes in a pelagic ecosystem For example the regime shift in the North Sea also evident from the greenness index (Reid et al 1998 Beaugrand 2004) was detected at the beginning of the 1980rsquos using an index of species diversity and the mean size of calanoid copepods Furthermore the use of species assemblage indicators is also highly recommended since they could inform on the resilience of pelagic ecosystems and therefore allow future changes to be anticipated

45 Potential common indicators for habitats The report of the OSPAR workshop on MSFD biodiversity descriptors comparison of targets and associated indicators hosted by the Netherlands and held in Amsterdam 2-4 November 2011 includes the following advice on potential common indicators for benthic habitats Sediment habitats were discussed separately from rock and biogenic reef habitats The advice on potential common indicators has been merged because of significant overlaps


60

Conclusions

General

a the common indicators are in the majority of cases generic in their description allowing for sub-regionally operationalised indicators and targets to be developed in future eg the choice of sensitive indicator species and metrics which are relevant to the sub-region and responsive to pressures for that particular sub-region Many of the indicators need further development into operational metrics taking into account monitoring requirements

b it is not currently known how indicators of distributional range and pattern will be measured This is an area which needs some further thought and coordination across Contracting Parties eg to determine if latitude and longitude is the appropriate metric to monitor range etc

c differing sizes of sea areas may determine suitability of indicators Pressure-based indicators are more realistic for large areas while measuring state indices directly is effective for small areas Both approaches can be integrated

Rock and biogenic reef habitats

d gaps in knowledge have been identified such as detailed ecological understanding (for subtidal rock and biogenic habitats) food web interactions and the definition of suitable baselines

e it is not clear at present whether an indicator and target is required for rock and biogenic reef habitats which addresses Commission Decision criterion 17 on ecosystem structure Alternatively this target may need to be a higher level aggregation across more biodiversity components to give an ecosystem level overview

f all of the rock and biogenic reef habitats considered within this group fall under habitat type 1170 (reefs) of Annex I of the Habitats Directive therefore many of these existing indicators can be directly applied in an MSFD context Also the targets used under HD can form a basis for targets under MSFD However HD targets may not be sufficient to achieve GES as defined in the MSFD as they do not sufficiently address restoration aspects and some Contracting Parties have not yet achieved sufficient tools coverage outside of Natura 2000 sites

Sediment habitats

In relation to the pressure sealing there is a need to further define how far the proposed indicator could be applicable in different situations

Advice per Commission Decision indicator

The criteria have been sometimes treated differently depending on whether they address predominant habitat types or special habitat types ndash a further check needs to be made to ensure both types are fully covered for each criterion

Habitat distribution and extent

bull For indicator 141 (habitat distributional range) and indicator 151 (habitat extent or area) two groups of relevant habitats have been proposed by Member States predominant habitats (eg defined as EUNIS level 3) and listed habitats under Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) supported the idea to have (separate) targets for predominant and listed habitats Decline in distribution was considered to relate primarily to habitats defined by [single] dominant species (eg biogenic reef types) because physically-defined habitats tend not to change in



distribution In this context EUNIS level 3 was considered not precise enough to detect decline in this criterion

bull Proposed targets for indicator 141 would be no decline and where appropriate an increase towards some historical level in the case of predominant habitats and slight deviation from or increasing towards reference conditions or favourable reference range in the case of listed habitats Targets need further consideration to improve consistency Decline has to be due to anthropogenic pressures

bull For indicator 142 (habitat distributional pattern) targets would be not significantly different from the baseline pattern Pattern is mainly important for habitats defined at the community level (eg biogenic reefs) much less for physically defined habitats There is however no information on the basis of which you can define how to measure (metric) or to define precise baseline and target

bull For indicator 151 the OSPAR Biodiversity Workshop proposed a target for predominant habitats ie no more than 15 loss from reference conditions and Annex 1 habitats ie stable or increase towards reference conditions There was concern by several Contracting Parties that 15 loss is unacceptably high This number needs further evaluation also in respect of current state and the scale to be applied

bull The same indicator also applies to listed habitats The target would then be stable or increasing and not smaller than baseline value which is favourable reference area for HD habitats For habitats on the OSPAR List it is advised to develop baselines at reference conditions

bull It was questioned whether there would be enough data to define reference conditions For indicator 151 reference conditions can be practically assessed by determining the extent of infrastructure or other anthropogenic modifications

Habitat condition and benthic condition

bull Biological component

o Indicator 161 typical species composition based on the presence of species in samples would apply to all types of habitats The target proposed is to maintain the proportion of typical species including sensitive species where appropriate within each habitat type compared to reference conditions This needs to be further specified potentially using a similarity index to compare current community characteristics to reference conditions For biogenic structure forming species additional indicators may be added although the level of consensus on these indicators is moderate

o Indicator 162 Use of multi-metric indices (eg the Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI)) to quantify relative abundance of sensitive and opportunistic benthic species was supported These currently apply to sediment habitats Depending on the index they need to relate to direct effects of pressures Targets should be aligned with WFD For sediment habitats the sampling techniques (grabs cores) often yield data on both species composition and their abundance ndash thus also fulfilling indicator 161

o Indicator 623 Size-frequency distribution of selected species (eg bivalve spp) would be a good indicator where pressure merely affects size range while species composition is not significantly affected Target would be near-natural size spectrum where all size classes are represented

bull Abiotic component

o Indicator 163 (physical hydrological and chemical conditions) indicator is considered important but not well-defined Multiple parameters are needed referring to sediment structure


62

and dynamics Member States proposed several targets structure distribution and dynamics of sediment at the most slightly altered (UK) and natural water-flow and the relief at the most slightly altered oxygen depletion rarely and short-term (DE)

o Indicator 612 (extent of damage) target area lost or damaged below GES should not exceed 15 (predominant habitats) or 5 (listed habitats) of the total area of the habitat The group considered a lsquono deteriorationrsquo target was unacceptable for sediment habitats in view of the current state of these habitats a deviation from reference condition is preferred to a trend-based target because it provides a specific level to achieve and can be applied equally to all habitat types The target was similarly proposed by HELCOM The 15 target originates from OSPAR work It needs further evaluation before the target can be operationalized

Physical damage

bull Indicator 161 (condition of typical speciescommunities) level of intensity frequency and area of pressure This would apply to all pressure indicators and if metrics are harmonised allow for quantification of cumulative pressures Target for this indicator would be the level of impact of pressure that will meet the state-based target for habitat condition and extent

An Alternative proposal based on the approach of the Utrecht 2010 Workshop rocky habitat group which is consistent with Table 31 below)

bull Indicator 161 (condition of typical speciescommunities) impactvulnerability of habitat types to physical damage Target would be the level of exposure to pressure should not result in more than ldquomoderate impactvulnerabilityrdquo of the habitat (dependent on the sensitivity of the habitat to this pressure)

bull Indicators on physical state (Descriptor 6) are rare and not well defined but may be more effective an approach than indicators on benthic fauna because they are tightly linked to human activitiespressures There is a need to seriously consider development of suitable physical state indicators



Table 31 Common approach towards indicators and targets for GES 1 and 6 benthic habitats

The following table outlines the GES indicators and detailed advice on parameters targets and preferred approach ie candidate common indicators The Table is based on responses to an inventory of nationally identified indicators returned by all Contracting Parties except Ireland and Iceland and subsequent discussion in the OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) ICG-COBAM(3) 2011 has further condensed this work into the current Advice Colours indicate the level of consensus in these discussions 1 Agreement Level Green = high Orange = some Red = none black = not enough information 2 Current Monitoring Green = sufficient Orange = some but more required Red = none black = not enough information 3 Pressure ndash see Annex 84 for more detailed definitions of each theme Notes

- Protocols and exact metrics need to be further specified for most of the indicators

- Focus of indicator proposals is on benthic habitats

- The predominant habitats are sediment habitats and do not include ldquoListedrdquo habitat types All rock habitats are ldquoListedrdquo habitat types

- For biogenic reefs only reefs formed by native species have been considered

- Indicators that were dropped 1) Distributional range for predominant habitats

Criterion Indicator Link to other Ds

ParameterMetric1

Target1 Baseline1 Monitoring2 Pressure

Adviceconsideration


Distributional range (141)

Listed habitats (HD OSPAR)


Stable or increasing towards favourable reference range

Favourable Reference Range not always specified and differing between CPs

Using HD monitoring need to check whether monitoring of OSPAR habitats is sufficient

Need to further identify baselines and reconsider target


Distributional pattern (142)



Distributional pattern is not significantly different from the baseline pattern

Using HD monitoring need to check whether monitoring of OSPAR habitats is

Physical loss physical damage

Verify added value of indicator compared to habitat area

No information on the basis of which you can define and monitor the metric or


64


ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration

sufficient to define a precise target

15 Habitat extent

Habitat area (151)


Habitat area

Stable or increasing and not smaller than baseline value

reference area not always specified



15 Habitat extent

Habitat area (151)

Predominant habitats

Habitat area

No more than 15 loss from reference conditions for each substrate type


Probably little monitoring in place


There was concern by several CPs that 15 loss is unacceptably high This number needs further evaluation also in respect of current state and the scale to be applied Note comments for 612 regarding damage and the need for further testing

15 Habitat extent

Habitat volume where relevant (152)

-


Habitat Condition of the typical species and communities (161)

All pressure descriptors

Typical species composition (presence)

Maintain proportion of typical species (incl sensitivelong-lived species)

Reference conditions


All types of pressures affecting habitats

Needs to be further specified A similarity index could be used comparing the community to referencebaseline conditions


Habitat Condition of the typical species and communities

Intertidal macrophyte species composition (abundance)

Macrophyte species composition is maintained

Using WFD monitoring need to check whether monitoring of OSPAR habitats is

All types of pressure affecting habitats




ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration

(161) sufficient



Density of biogenic structure forming species

Maintain current density of habitat forming species at known locations with biogenic structures




Impactvulnerability of habitat types to physical damage

Level of exposure to pressure should not result in more than ldquomoderate impact vulnerabilityrdquo of the habitat (dependent on the sensitivity of the habitat to this pressure)

Physical damage This is a preliminary idea for an impact indicator based on spatial overlapping of habitat and pressure data Needs more development and validation



D5 D6 Macrophyte depth distribution

WFD target Using WFD monitoring need to check whether monitoring of OSPAR habitats is sufficient

Pollution and other chemical changes (ie nutrient enrichment) [

Already implemented WFD target and indicator Needs to be adapted and tested in a wider biogeoraphic and ecological context


Habitat Relative abundance andor biomass as appropriate (162)

D6 Multi-metric indices (eg BEQI) to quantify relative abundance of sensitive and opportunistic benthic species (see COM DEC 622)

Depending on the index need to relate to direct effects of pressures Targets should be aligned with those set under WFD


Pros applies to all sediment habitats (special and predominant) Can also give data for typical species indicator Cons information on separate species (eg trends shifts between species) is lost

Needs further testing and calibration against sensitivity to pressures especially


66


ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration

in offshore areas Possibly to be included in monitoring and preliminarily without setting a target


Habitat Physical hydrological and chemical conditions (163 )

D5 D6 D7 D8

Quality and abiotic conditions of all relevant habitats in Annex 1 of the Habitat Directive

Only slight alteration from natural conditions


Using HD monitoring

Indicator needs further specification eg in terms of abiotic characteristics


Ecosystem Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components (habitats and species) (171)


612 Extent of seabed significantly affected for the different substrate types

151 16 62



Area of habitat below GES (ie unacceptable impact unsustainable use) as defined by condition indicators must not exceed 5 of the baseline value

Favourable Reference Area for HD habitats

Using HD monitoring and spatial pressure data need to check whether monitoring of OSPAR habitats is sufficient (see proposal for 151)

Physical damage Need to further identify baselines for reference areas



151 16 62



Area of habitat below GES (ie unacceptable impact unsustainable use) as defined by condition indicators must not

Reference area

Physical damage The target was similarly proposed by HELCOM The 15 target originates from OSPAR work (pro) Combination of extent and condition within target is important




ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration

exceed 15 of the baseline value

Includes loss+damage (pro)

The target needs further evaluation before the target can be operationalized


623 Biomassnumber of individuals above specified lengthsize


Near-natural size spectrum where all size classes are represented




68

5 Species 51 Assessment scales and species

For mobile species that are very wide-ranging assessment areas may need to be as large or larger than sub-regions spanning a whole region if necessary to adequately reflect the population characteristics of some species (eg certain cetaceans) However if assessment areas are too large there is a risk that assessment of GES could be biased towards those areas that are in the best condition or least impacted Large assessment areas may fail to take into account significant but localised impacts that could result in a shrinking of the populationrsquos range or fragmentation of it This may have negative effects on the rest of the population in the longer term Careful setting of targets under Descriptor 1 criterion 11 population distribution may help to reduce the risk of detrimental range shrinkage or fragmentation A case by case approach is recommended depending on species to define a relevant assessment area However the defined area should be as far as is possible compatible (or nested) within the sub-regions and linked to those used for habitats to facilitate assessments at ecosystem level (criterion 17 Descriptor 4)

Seabirds are not always highly mobile ndash they form aggregations and can be assessed at this particular location A recent analysis of seabird breeding numbers at colonies around the UK showed that temporal trends were similar at adjacent colonies and that sub-regional groupings of colonies existed presumably because of common drivers in population state related to the geographical location of each colony Such an analysis could be used in terms of selecting the most ecologically coherent assessment areas

Assessment scales must be appropriate for the subject and purpose of the assessment From the experience in the UK where its marine waters are sub-divided into lsquoregional seasrsquo (based on biogeographical criteria) it has been demonstrated that such an approach is an appropriate scale for determining GES for seabirds because they depend on the marine resources within the regional seas However in supporting such an approach it is recommended that this should not ignore but rather make use of the results of smaller scale more detailed assessments that Member States may undertake Under the EU Birds Directive Member States are required to assess and determine the status of each Specially Protected Area (SPA) as well as to monitor the bird populations at the Member State scale to ensure that the ecological requirements of each species are being met within their jurisdiction Consequently this reporting under the Birds Directive will provide data for the GES assessments also highlighting if and where smaller scale issues are occurring that may have knock on effects for the assessment of GES of seabirds A similar situation also applies to the two seal species occurring in UK waters The majority of cetacean species however range over much larger areas although reporting under the Habitats Directive will provide data for GES assessments

In order to achieve an ecosystem-based approach to management ICESJRC Task Group 1 recommended the assessment areas should be defined according to the criteria provided in Art 32 (hydrological oceanographic and biogeographic) This approach was used to sub-divide the UKrsquos territorial waters into assessment areas for two successive state of the seas assessments (2005 2010)43 For cetaceans in particular it was not possible to carry out assessments in these spatial units because a) the data on state were not extensive enough to provide accurate indicators at such small spatial scales and b) the species move across the sub-divisional boundaries and therefore measures required to improve population state (eg bycatch reduction) would need to be implemented at a much larger scale Indeed the Utrecht workshop recommended that assessments of cetaceans under relevant criteria in D1 and D4 should be at a biological population level which may correspond to a regionsub-region (eg North Sea) Existing assessments on mobile species can provide useful guidance

43 For the North Sea these are the UK parts of the five areas proposed for habitat assessment (see Section 421)



for example the Ecological Quality Objects for the harbour porpoise bycatch grey and harbour seal populations and for commercial fish stocks


More work is needed on determining appropriate assessment scales for species An important issue which is currently not covered in this advice manual is temporal assessment scales (notably relating to life cycles) which will have relevance to monitoring guidances and frequency of monitoring to detect trends

52 Marine mammals and reptiles

521 Cetaceans

Criteria from Commission Decision

Species distribution (11) and Population size (12)

There are two appropriate means of setting lsquostatersquo targets on species distribution and population size for cetaceans

Adopting directionaltrends-based targets (specifying direction of change) (Target-setting method 1) using a mixture of approaches to set a baseline) (Baseline-setting Methods A B44 and C)

In practice this means using an approach similar to that of Habitats Directive Favourable Conservation Status reporting but with assessment units based on biological populations (rather than Member State political boundaries) and ensuring that where historic data indicate population size distribution and condition were greater in the past GES targets should seek a clear improvement in these criteria (rather than simply maintaining them at current state) Specifying an lsquoend pointrsquo state target may be scientifically flawed given the limitations of current information but population sizes should not be expected to always increase and so directional targets should be periodically reviewed in the light of ecosystem balances and ongoing pressures It may also be possible to model carrying capacity for common marine mammal species based on assumptions or measurements of parameters of life history and use this as a baseline A target can then be set as a deviation from this baseline of total carrying capacity (for example 80) (This method underpins the targets for harbour porpoise bycatch set by ASCOBANS and used in the OSPAR EcoQO)

For species distribution it may be more appropriate to use historic distribution patterns as a baseline and a specified deviation target as trends-based targets are less appropriate for this criterion

In the absence of any reliable information from which to derive baseline and target states an alternative approach may be to set targets on the pressures that are known to impact on cetaceans ndash see below

Population condition (13)

Indicators could possibly be developed for body size or age class structure sex ratio fecundity rates survivalmortality rates of cetaceans where the availability of reliable information allows Targets for these indicators could be set using methods outlined above for population size and distribution or by using pressure targets (for example for certain pollutants such as PCBs) as a proxy for species population condition Lack of suitable information will greatly limit the scope (eg number of constituent species) of any indicators for population condition

44 Note there may not be enough historical information on genuinely unimpacted cetacean populations historical information is still very useful in indicating the levels of cetacean populations at various (impacted) points in the past This information should inform baseline-setting along with current and recent scientific monitoring data


70

Abundancedistribution of key trophic groupsspecies (43)

Marine mammals are not necessarily useful indicators in the context of food webs This is because most marine mammals are opportunistic feeders and can alter feeding strategies according to the relative abundance of prey species This means the state of marine mammal populations are not always a direct and immediate reflection of the state of other trophic levels

Pressure targets

Reducing known pressures on cetaceans is an alternative way of achieving GES for cetaceans when there are problems with setting state targets or monitoring progress towards them Ideally state and pressure targets should be used in combination where possible Obviously some degree of understanding of the impact of pressures on cetaceans is required if realistic targets are to be set This may be particularly difficult for baleen whales for which current impacts are poorly understood

Pressure targets could be set using the following approaches

a setting pressure targets in line with impact levels ie agreed deviations from modelled carrying capacity For instance the Harbour porpoise EcoQO requires annual bycatch levels to be reduced to below 17 of the best population estimate so that a target population of at least 80 of carrying capacity is maintained

b reducing pressures on cetaceans at crucial points during their life-cycle

c reducing or eliminating the impacts of pressures on endangeredthreatened species

The EIASEA process may well be used to regulate licensed activities that may introduce (new) pressures (eg underwater noise) that will impact on cetaceans unless mitigation measures are introduced

522 Seals


Species distribution (11) Population condition (13)

Population size (12) and Abundancedistribution of key Trophic groupsspecies (43)

There are two existing EcoQOs on harbour seal population size and on grey seal pup production (a proxy for breeding population size) that are potentially useful as targets of GES under Descriptors 1 and 4 Both EcoQOs use a current baseline of a five-year running mean (Baseline-setting Method C) and a directional trend based target (rate of change) (Target-setting Method 1) taking into account natural population dynamics and trends there should be no decline of ge10 within any of eleven sub-units (re harbour seal) or nine sub-units (re grey seal) of the North Sea

The EcoQOs were designed to trigger concern that there is a problem with an important part of the North Searsquos mammal fauna If the EcoQO is not met then it is unlikely that immediate management action would be taken instead it is intended that this event should trigger research into the causes of this change Therefore the EcoQO may not necessarily indicate whether GES has been achieved or not and so there are problems with using these EcoQOs in the context of MSFD Firstly the use of a current baseline may not be appropriate in the context of GES because it does not indicate what the aspirations for seal populations should be Secondly the 10 target may also not be appropriate for GES given that it was not developed to be a statutory threshold 10 was the level at which change could be reliably detected and at which social concern is usually raised

The EcoQOs on seals in their current form would not be an appropriate target for GES but could be useful for indicating areas where seal populations might not be moving towards GES Member States could commit to



taking necessary measures for seals if this research indicated a need to do so The use of smaller assessment units is also useful for indicating the impact of localised pressures (eg bycatch)

Another possible approach might be to model carrying capacity (as with harbour porpoise ndash see above) and set a target as an appropriate deviation from that (eg 80)

Pressure targets

Given that there are problems with setting state targets for seals or monitoring progress towards them there could be reliance on pressure targets alone to monitor achievement towards GES Ideally state and pressure targets should be used in combination where possible Pressure targets could be set as outlined for cetaceans above for example visualnoise disturbance should be prevented at seal haul-outpupping areas during relevant times of the year ICES has previously considered using the number of undisturbed haul outpupping sites as a basis for an EcoQO but rejected the idea due to the lack of information on the location of suitable areas for undisturbed haul outpupping sites However there may be merit in exploring this concept in the context of GES The location of pupping areas can change from year to year (OSPAR 200545) and they are not necessarily protected through Natura 2000 As a result any target-setting should be independent of where the pupping areas are located in a given year

A synthesis of the information presented here is provided as Annex 87 (Table 1)

523 Reptiles46

Given that marine turtles do not breed in the North-East Atlantic and occur in very low densities over very large areas it is probably unrealistic to attempt to collect abundance data that could be used to provide indicators of population distributionsize or condition under Descriptors 1 and 4 Likewise carrying capacity models (as suggested above for cetceans and seals) would be extremely difficult to construct given the paucity of necessary information An alternative approach to achieving GES for turtles in the north-east Atlantic region may be to set a pressure-target to reduce or eliminate the impact of predominant pressures for example from fisheries bycatch

Setting baselines and targets

Data on historical populations of oceanic stage turtles in the North-East Atlantic are considered insufficient to set a negligible impact reference state and a robust modelled reference state for historical populations is not available Therefore the options of setting a baseline as a past state (Method B) or set the current state as the baseline (Method C) are more achievable and should at least prevent any further deterioration of the population However it is highlighted that they provide less scope for recovery of the populations as deterioration of population levels has already occurred

State targets

Given that marine turtles occurring in the North-East Atlantic breed outside the area the use of indicators based on nest production (an appropriate state target used in nesting regions) can only be achieved if collaboration is established with western and southern Atlantic countries and territories where nesting beaches are known to occur

On the other hand establishing state targets based on estimates of the oceanic stage turtles found in the North-East Atlantic itself would require logistically-intense international monitoring efforts at a regional scale encompassing the waters off Portugal Spain France Ireland and the UK 45 OSPAR 2005 Background Document on the Ecological Quality Objective for Seal Population Trends in the North Sea Publication No 245 13pp 46 Adapted from International Working Group for the Conservation of the North-west Atlantic Loggerhead Nesting Population 2010 White Paper for the Loggerhead Sea Turtle in the Marine Environment 4 pp


72

Retrieving information from various observers programmes (for fisheries marine mammals and seabirds) and commercial fisheries bycatch records would be most appropriate since the North-East Atlantic turtle populations occur in very low densities over a very large area The fisheries observers programme ongoing at the University of the Azores (POPA) was identified as a potential source of information but a basin-wide integration of information is not likely to occur within the 2012 timeframe

Once population size is estimated the impacts of pressures occurring in the North-East Atlantic can be properly assessed and carrying capacity models developed that provide pressure mitigation targets Pressure targets

Given the paucity of data available for the previous approaches and the inadequacy of relying on nest production indicators for obtaining a timely indicator of the state of pelagic stages of the dominant species (Caretta caretta) using pressure indicators and setting pressure targets are probably most appropriate for a more immediate mitigation of the main pressures

Fisheries bycatch

As inferred from the recommendations of the International working group for the conservation of the North-west Atlantic Longgerheads summarized above pressure targets for fisheries bycatch could be based upon one or several of the following indices

a turtles by-caught per number of hooks based on pelagic fisheries observers programmes

b changes in pelagic fisheries operation (eg focus on reduction in the number of hooks in the water per daylight hour)

c percentage of turtle-bycatch minimizing techniques per total number of hooks set (eg focus on use of modified hooks and leader lines baiting practices elimination of lightsticks)

d number of training and awareness activities on safe handling and de-hooking protocols provided to fishermen and longline fisheries observers

Marine litter

Marine pollution is also of major concern for marine turtle conservation Cables and plastic rings are known to entangle or strangle the turtlersquos limbs and neck causing lethal and sub-lethal effects Furthermore plastic debris in general may be confused for natural preys such as gelatinous pelagic organisms and ingested ending up accumulating in the turtlesrsquo guts and producing lethal clogs or sublethal constipation Finally contamination by spilled hydrocarbon products also cause a range of lethal and sublethal physical physiological and toxic effects on these marine reptiles

An appropriate pressure target contributing to Descriptor 10 would be the acquisition of rescuenecropsy statistics on

a frequency of rescuedstranded turtles containing plastic debris in the gut

b the weight of plastics in the gut as a function of body size (weight carapace length)

c the frequency of live andor dead turtles affected by limb entanglement and stranglement

d the number of turtle deaths attributable to marine litter

e frequency of stranded turtles affected by oil contamination

524 Potential common indicators for marine mammals and reptiles

The report of the OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) includes the following advice on potential common indicators for mammals A bycatch indicator for reptiles ie turtles has been proposed by



both Spain and Portugal but this was not submitted in time for discussion by the subgroup (due to an administrative error) Following the workshop these proposals were added to Table 41 below Conclusions

a It is considered essential to develop coordinated international monitoring programmes to support any common regional indicators eg use SCANS47CODA48 surveys and the Joint Cetacean Protocol49 to facilitate the development of robust and accurate transboundary reporting

b A number of countries had proposed using marine mammal abundance and other parameters as indicators of food web status The group concluded that marine mammal indicators are not necessarily particularly useful in this context because most marine mammals are opportunistic feeders and because the feeding strategy of the same species will not be the same in different areas So although the indicators and targets proposed fit the Commission Decision criteria they were not representative indicators of the food web


Bycatch a A significant number of Contracting Parties are proposing bycatch indicators and targets (for short-

beaked common dolphin harbour porpoise grey and harbour seals) There is strong potential to develop common bycatch targetsindicators at a regional level It was acknowledged that the specific species to be used in the indicator would vary from sub-region to sub-region

b Differences in target thresholds for bycatch need to be resolved For porpoises there was general

agreement about the approach but debate about whether to use 17 or 1 of best population estimate (OSPAR uses 17 ASCOBANS uses 17 as an interim level with the ultimate aim of reducing to 1) An alternative approach is to reduce the rate of bycatch by 30 Similar issues occur in relation to common dolphins

c Monitoring methodologies for bycatch appear to differ across Contracting Parties with UK assessment of

bycatch based on observers on commercial vessels Netherlands and Belgium based on monitoring of strandings and Sweden based on information reported by fishing vessels The potential to use CCTV information on vessels in the future was noted (The Common Fisheries Policy may end up requiring this)

d Bycatch indicators are also relevant to Commission Decision indicator 431 ndash however bycatch is not

considered a particularly good indicator of food web status Distribution (range and pattern) and abundance of seals and cetaceans

e Distribution and abundance of grey and harbour seals and a range of cetaceans (including harbour porpoise and short-beaked common dolphin) are proposed by a significant number of Contracting Parties It should be possible to develop common regional targetsindicators for seals and cetaceans

f Monitoring methodologies and surveys need to be clarified to ensure commonality (eg especially for seal monitoring) Monitoring of cetaceans and seals differs as seals are counted on land and cetaceans at sea For seals extensive knowledge is available for numbers on land however a knowledge gap is

47 SCANS - Small Cetacean Abundance in the North Sea and adjacent waters 48 CODA ndash Cetatean Offshore Distribution and Abundance in the European Atlantic 49 Joint Cetacean Protocol httpjnccdefragovukpage-5657


74

behaviour and pattern of seals at sea Some information is gathered with tagged animals For cetaceans there is a good basis for common monitoring with international SCANS and CODA surveys

g Distributional range will be impacted by anthropogenic activity Considerably more work is needed on development of the actual target and baseline (historical baseline thought to be most appropriate) There is a need for a better definition for the term lsquodistributional rangersquo and current data availability - pattern within range is more important for most countries than range per se

Seal and cetacean population condition

h A number of potentially common indicators for seal and cetacean condition have been identified (eg seal pub survival PCB contamination condition based on post-mortem analysis of strandingsbycatch) ndashall of these require further work

i A possible indicator of population condition could also be the pup production ratio of seals (if a population is healthy the ratio pupadult is higher than when a population is under stress) however caution is needed in areas with recovering populations For example in the Wadden Sea (NL DE DK) the population is increasing and as a consequence pupadult ratios are high When the population becomes more stable pupadult ratio will fall However this will not indicate declining status but rather a maturing population

Table 41 contains proposed common parameters including one parameter proposed for reptiles See also Table 61 for common parameters relating to Descriptor 4 on food webs



Table 41 Common approach towards indicators and targets for GES 1 and 4 mammals and reptiles

The following table outlines the GES indicators and detailed advice on parameters targets and preferred approach ie candidate common indicators The Table uses Descriptor 1 as a starting point and includes references to related indicators in Descriptor 4 The Table is based on responses to an inventory of nationally identified indicators returned by all CPs except Ireland and Iceland and subsequent discussion in the OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) ICG-COBAM(3) 2011 has further condensed this work into the current advice Colours indicate the level of consensus in these discussions 1 Agreement Level Green = high Orange = some Red = none black = not enough information 2 Current Monitoring Green = sufficient Orange = some but more required Red = none black = not enough information 3 Pressure ndash see Annex 84 for more detailed definitions of each theme lsquoNo single pressurersquo = no identified links between the parametermetric and a specifc type of pressure 4 Feasibility Already operational some further development of indicatorbaselinetargets required andor more monitoring required concept is sound but requires substantial development and additional monitoring

Criterion Indicator Link to other Descriptorss

ParameterMetric1

Target1 Baseline1 Monitoring2 Pressure3

Advice

consideration

Feasibility4


Species Distributional range (111)

None Distributional range of grey and harbour seal haul-outs amp breeding colonies

No decrease with regard to baseline due to anthropogenic activities

Baseline mostly derived from SCANS I (1994) or SCANS II (2005) or if available from historical data (ie at a time with little human influence)

All seal monitoring data is based on hauled out and some tagged animals at sea

No single pressure but potential substantial impact of biological pressure on small cetatceans through bycatch

Progress expert discussions to define and agree the range and parameters for monitoring and assessment

Seals indicators not relevant for region IV

Distributional range of cetacean species regularly present

For cetaceans broadscale international surveys (SCANS CODA and ESAS) at low temporal frequency

Consider requirements for the continuation of existing large-scale surveys to strengthen regular monitoring programme for cetaceans and


76


ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4

National monitoring and surveys by some countries on smaller local scales

gain agreement on common protocols for data collection and interpretation Further develop mechanisms such as the JCP to enable collation of data and production of accurate transboundary assessments

Species Distributional pattern within the latter where appropriate (112)

None

Distributional pattern of grey and harbour seal haul-outs amp breeding colonies due to anthropogenic activities







None Distributional pattern of cetacean species regularly present due to anthropogenic activities



For cetaceans broadscale international surveys (SCANS CODA and ESAS) at low temporal frequency National monitoring


Consider requirements for the continuation of existing large-scale surveys to strengthen regular monitoring programme for cetaceans and gain agreement on common




ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4

and surveys by some countries on smaller local scales

protocols for data collection and interpretation Further develop mechanisms such as the JCP to enable collation of data and production of accurate transboundary assessments

Species Area covered by the species (for sessilebenthic species) (113)

NA

12 Population size

Species Population abundance andor biomass as appropriate (121)


Abundance of grey and harbour seal at haul-out sites amp within breeding colonies

No statistically significant decrease with regard to baseline due to anthropogenic activities



o single pressure but potential substantial impact of biological pressure on small cetatceans through bycatch


Abundance at the relevant temporal scale of cetacean species regularly present

No statistically significant decrease with regard to baseline due to anthropogenic


For cetaceans broadscale international surveys (SCANS CODA and ESAS) at low temporal frequency National

No single pressure but potential substantial impact of biological pressure on small cetatceans through

Consider requirements for the continuation of existing large-scale surveys to strengthen regular monitoring programme for cetaceans and gain agreement


78


ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4

activities monitoring and surveys by some countries on smaller local scales These can then be collated on a European wide basis through mechanisms such as the JCP to produce a transboundary assessment

bycatch on common protocols for data collection and interpretation Further develop mechanisms such as the JCP to enable collation of data and production of accurate transboundary assessments


Species Population demographic characteristics (eg body size or age class structure sex ratio fecundity rates survivalmortality rates) (131)

None Harbour seal and Grey seal pup production

No statistically significant deviation from long-term variation no decline of ge10

Current population

Monitoring already exists for this indicator in the framework of the OSPAR EcoQOs comparability among countries is warrantied even if there is not a strictily similar sampling procedure amoung countries

No single pressure

Different targets were proposed our suggestion is to follow the OSPAR EcoQO as an agreed target at least for the North Sea Region

Numbers of individuals per species (mammals) being bycaught in relation to

Less than Annual bycatch rate is reduced to below

Current rate of bycatch

Monitoring of bycatch varies by MS and population estimates are

Biological pressures

EcoQO for harbour porpoise to be expanded to other species The selected species may vary




ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4

population estimates

x of the best population estimate where x depends on the species

being made through SCANS surveys

among CPs linked to sub-regional differences

Numbers of individuals per species (reptiles) being bycaught

Decreasing trend


Different rate of implementation of monitoring programmes among CPs


The selected species may vary among CPs linked to sub-regional differences


80

53 Birds

531 Criteria from Commission Decision

Species distribution (11)

Species distribution may only require limited attention when determining GES for marine birds This is because most species are highly mobile and have large ranges that are mostly constrained by climatic geographic and physiographic factors rather than by human pressures except at a very local level

Population size (12) and 43 Abundancedistribution of key Trophic groupsspecies

The criterion level target should be similar to that proposed for an OSPAR EcoQO on seabird population trends as an index of seabird community health a limit is set on the proportion of species for which breeding abundance is within target levels the EcoQO or GES is achieved if this proportion exceeds the limit The indicator is the annual measure of abundance (eg pairs individuals) expressed as a percentage of species-specific baseline (Target-setting Method 3) The baseline is set in the past and is based on expert judgement of when population levels were considered to be least impacted by human activities (Baseline setting Method A) The indicator targets are set as positive and negative deviations from the baseline (eg +- 30)

The EcoQO on seabird population trends has not yet been adopted by OSPAR but is lsquounder developmentrsquo as data is collated from countries within the Greater North Sea The EcoQO was developed for breeding populations of seabirds in functional groups offshore and inshore surface- and pelagic-feeding birds but only partially reflects the state of the non-breeding populations of these groups Insufficient data exist to enable trends in offshore non-breeding abundance to be estimated but there is probably scope to expand monitoring to compile indicators and targets on inshore wintering aggregations of pelagic- and benthic-feeding birds There are also sufficient time-series data on abundance during winter and migration to compile indicators for inter-tidal benthic feeders Most species in these groups breed widely dispersed in the Arctic and over-winter in Europe therefore abundance on non-breeding grounds is a more appropriate indicator than breeding population size

Indicators and targets developed for Criterion 12 (population size) would also be appropriate for assessing GES under criterion 43 Abundancedistribution of key Trophic groupsspecies

Population condition (13) and 41 productivity of key species or trophic groups

This criterion is considered relevant to the definition of GES for marine birds Most marine bird species are long-lived and slow to reproduce Changes in their breeding numbers alone are a poorer indicator of short-term environmental change or acute pressure impacts from pressures (eg to food supply) than are other demographic characteristics (eg breeding success)

The EcoQO on Local sandeel availability to black-legged kittiwakes (under development) presents an example of how targets could be set for demographic characteristics (cf indicator 131) The EcoQO assumes that if black-legged kittiwakes are unable to breed successfully for several years in succession then it is likely that sandeel abundance (or that of other small shoaling fish) is low representing a serious risk of adverse effects on many predator species The target is set at a limit of mean annual breeding success over a specified period ndash if the mean breeding success falls below the limit the viability of the population is considered to be under threat

Kittiwakes are a good indicator species as their survival and breeding success are closely linked to food supply and the factors (such as climate) that affect it Further work is needed to determine a) the most appropriate period over which to assess breeding success (ie the 3 years recommended by the EcoQO may be too short to indicate a threat of serious or irreversible harm to kittiwake populations) b) most appropriate limit and c) to include other species that are representative of other functional groups The determination of GES using these criteria may be limited to those areas where sufficient monitoring of breeding success of kittiwakes and other



applicable species is undertaken Incidentally other demographic characteristics that might be good indicators of population condition are monitored at only a few sites and in a few species

Indicators and targets developed for Criterion 13 (population condition) would also be appropriate for assessing GES under criterion 41 productivity of key species or trophic groups

A synthesis of the information provided here is presented in Table 2 of Annex 87

532 Potential common indicators for birds

Conclusions

bull Inclusion of targets reflecting the general status of the marine environment without necessarily having a direct connection to the impacts of pressures

bull A common set of criteria should be developed for selecting species to constitute each indicator Indicators should not be limited to declining or vulnerable species

bull Exclusion of EcoQOs on oiled guillemots litter in fulmar stomachs and pollutants in bird eggs these targets relate to pressures under D8 Contaminants and D10 Litter and not to biodiversity state or impacts

Advice per indicator

Species Distribution bull 111 Distributional Range Distributional range of breeding and non-breeding marine birds bull 112 Distributional Pattern Distributional pattern of breeding and non-breeding marine birds bull The proposed indicators and targets for 11 Species Distribution contained common elements that

were used to construct a generic indicator and target for each of 111 species distributional range and 112 distributional pattern 111 Distributional Range Distributional range of breeding and non-breeding marine birds 112 Distributional Pattern Distributional Pattern of breeding and non-breeding marine birds

bull The new indicators cover all types of marine bird species including all appropriate functional groups at breeding colonies and at sea Metrics for both indicators will vary with the type of data collected eg colony position and size for breeding seabirds number of birds per unit area of sea for seabirds at sea

Population Size

bull Species-specific trends in relative abundance of non-breeding and breeding seabird and waterbird species in all functional groups

bull Use the draft EcoQO on seabird populations as a target because it is easy to understand and data are generally available It was originally designed for breeding seabird populations but should be adapted for other populations such as breeding waterbirds and marine bird species that breed outside Europe but migrate through or over-winter in European seas There are currently indicators of breeding seabird populations for the EcoQO in OSPAR Region 2 and 3

Population Condition

bull Breeding successfailure of a selection of waterbird and seabird species bull Annual breeding success of kittiwake (where applicable)

Use the indicator and target proposed by the UK on kittiwake productivity These are a modification of the draft EcoQO on Local sandeel availability to Black-legged kittiwakes the original target of 06


82

chicks per pair is replaced by a variable target that takes into account variation in annual breeding success that is attributable to prevailing climatic conditions

bull Breeding success failure of a selection of waterbird and seabird species The bird sub group at the OSPAR Biodiversity Workshop (Amsterdam 2-4 November 2011) also recommend a more generic seabird breeding successfailure indicator that provides a watching-brief over other species and can be used in the Bay of Biscay wider Atlantic and parts of the North Sea where kittiwake do not breed Further work is required to develop a target for such an indicator

bull Non-nativeinvasive mammal presence on island seabird colonies Land-based pressures that affect birds that depend on the marine environment for food (such as depredation at breeding seabird colonies) should be included in indicators and targets under MSFD (as is eutrophication under Descriptor 5 which originates from land-based sources) A target was proposed under 13 to restore or maintain key island seabird colonies free of non-native or invasive predatory mammals

bull Mortality of seabirds from fishing (bycatch) and aquaculture (where applicable)

Ecosystem structure The Bird sub group at the OSPAR Biodiversty Workshop (Amsterdam 2-4 November 2011) suggested using indicators for 12 Suggest developing an indicator and target based on species number species evenness or other indicators of specific assemblages Such indicators could be derived from data collected for the indicators on population size (121) Productivity amp abundancedistribution of key species groups (criteria 4143)

The Bird sub groupSuggested using indicators for 11 and 12 and 13

See table 42 See also table 61 for common parameters relating to Descriptor 4 on food webs



Table 42 Common approach towards indicators and targets for GES 1 and 4 birds

The following table outlines the GES indicators and detailed advice on parameters targets and preferred approach ie candidate common indicators The Table uses Descriptor 1 as a starting point and includes references to related indicators in Descriptor 4 The Table is based on responses to an inventory of nationally identified indicators returned by all Contracting Parties except Ireland and Iceland and subsequent discussion in the OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) ICG-COBAM(3) 2011 has further condensed this work into the current advice Colours indicate the level of consensus in these discussions 1 Agreement Level Green = high Orange = some Red = none black = not enough information 2 Current Monitoring Green = sufficient Orange = some but more required Red = none black = not enough information3 Pressure ndash see Annex 84 for more detailed definitions of each theme lsquoNo single pressurersquo = no identified links between the parametermetric and a specifc type of pressure 4 Feasibility Already operational some further development of indicatorbaselinetargets required andor more monitoring required concept is sound but requires substantial development and additional monitoring

Criterion Indicator Link to other Descriptors

Parameter Metric1


Advice consideration

Feasibility4



None Distributional range of breeding and non-breeding marine birds

(different parameters for breeding seabird colonies wintering shorebirds amp marine birds at-sea)

No major shifts or shrinkage in the range of marine birds in 75 of species monitored (separate assessments for each functional group and for range of breeding birds and range of inshore waterbirds)

Set as past distributions where data is available otherwise use the start of new time-series

Monitoring of marine birds at-sea in North Sea is confined to waters of DE BE DK NL SE FR None in Celtic Seas UK is currently scoping a monitoring scheme for offshore seabirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas coastal waters

No single pressure

Further discussion needed between Contracting Party experts to

a) select constituent species

b) agree on paramtersmetrics

c) select baseline range for each species

d) define target range for each species

e) coordinate data collation and reporting across Contracting Parties


84


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4

Monitoring of shorebirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas concentrated in transitional waters so may need additional monitoring of coastal waters


None Distributional pattern of breeding and non-breeding marine birds


No major shifts or shrinkage in the distributional pattern of marine birds in 75 of species monitored (separate assessments for each functional group and for distribution of breeding colonies and distribution of birds at sea - both inshore and offshore)


Monitoring of marine birds at-sea in North Sea is confined to waters of DE BE DK NL SE FR None in Celtic Seas UK is currently scoping a monitoring scheme for offshore seabirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas coastal waters Monitoring of shorebirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas concentrated in transitional waters so

No single pressure










Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4

may need additional monitoring of coastal waters

12 Population size



Changes in abundance of marine birds should be within individual target levels in 75 of species monitored (separate assessments for each functional group and for breeding and non-breeding aggregations) Species-specific annual breeding abundance should be more than x and less than y of the baseline (values of x and y can be species-specific)


Monitoring at-sea of aggregations of seabirds in North Sea is confined to waters of DE BE DK NL SE FR None in Celtic Seas UK is currently scoping a monitoring scheme for offshore seabirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas coastal waters Monitoring of shorebirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas concentrated in transitional waters so may need additional monitoring of coastal waters

No single pressure

Target and indicator are based on the draft EcoQO on seabird population trends Target threshold of 75 proposed by ICES (2008) UK to put out to consultation two options 75 and 90



b) select baseline abundance for each species

c) define target thresholds for each species (should upper threshold apply only to species that depredate other birds and benefit from anthropogenic food sources)

d) coordinate data collation and reporting across Contracting Parties


86


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4



4 Annual breeding success of kittiwake

Annual breeding success is not significantly different statistically from the level expected in the prevailing climatic conditions (defined by local SST in winter 2 years previous winter) in five years out of six

Annual breeding success predicted by a regression of past breeding success and SST in winter 2 years previous

Breeding success of kittiwakes is monitored at colonies throughout its range in the Celtic Seas and the Greater North Sea

Biological pressure ndash

Target is a modification of the draft EcoQO on Local sandeel availability to Black-legged kittiwakes that takes into account variation in annual breeding success that is attributable to prevailing climatic conditions

Further data analysis by Contracting Parties to determine colony-specific baselines and targets


a) aggregate colony assessments to regional sea scale

b) coordinate data collation and reporting across Contracting Parties


Species Population demographic characteristics (eg body size or age class structure sex

4 Breeding successfailure of seabird species

Less than 5-15 of colonies failing (breeding success lt 01 chicks per nest) per year

NA Breeding success data collected by all relevant CPs for certain species Need to determine if

No single pressure

Agreed that an indicator based on breeding success or failure should be developed for a wider range of species to monitor whether the




Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4

ratio fecundity rates survivalmortality rates) (131)

per year in more than three out of six-years

sufficient collected in each sub-region to construct an indicator

kitttiwake target is indicative of GES accross the wider community of marine birds Further discussion needed between Contracting Party experts to

a) agree on proposed targets and b) select indicator species



Mortality of seabirds from fishing (bycatch) and aquaculture

Estimated mortality as a result of fishing bycatch and aquaculture entanglement does not exceed levels that would prevent targets for 12 population size from being achieved

NA No current systematic monitoring of seabird bycatch in all countries

Some countries could extend or modify existing bycatch monitoring for cetaceans

Biological pressure

Agreement that an indicator of bycatch is required because

the extent of the impact is unknown

the impact could be substantial and

Impact could be reduced by tried and tested measures

Further work by experts to set targets on level of acceptable mortality from bycatch




No non-native mammals on key island seabird colonies

NA Extent of monitoring mammal presence known Monitoring is straight forward and

Biological pressure

Agreement that that this is a major pressure and some target should be implemented

The pressure directly impacts on


88


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4


conducted at some sites

CPs need to identify Key islands Possible selection criteria are published eg Ratcliffe et al 2009

demographics ie mortality and productivity

Suggest including invasive native species eg foxes getting on islands where they do not naturally occur

Measures should include eradication of predators from islands and the quarantine of predator-free islands against invasionreinvasion



biodiversity in terms of species numbers species evenness or other indicators of specific assemblages

stable Monitoring of marine birds at-sea in North Sea is confined to waters of DE BE DK NL SE FR None in Celtic Seas UK is currently scoping a monitoring scheme for offshore seabirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas coastal waters Monitoring of shorebirds in North Sea and Celtic

No single pressure

Agree that indicator and target needed for 17 re Marine Birds Suggest using indicator and targets for 121 Population abundance




Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4

Seas concentrated in transitional waters so may need additional monitoring of coastal waters


90

54 Fish and cephalopods This section is organised according to the mobile species grouping as adopted under OSPAR and used in the GES4BIO workshop held in Utrecht November 2010 As a consequence the species group covers all fish and cephalopods species but no other invertebrate species which are dealt with in the context of their benthic and pelagic associated habitats For the fish and cephalopod species group there is a close link between the biodiversity descriptors 1 4 and 6 which are dealt with in this Manual and Descriptor 3 on commercial fish and shellfish stocks Fish and cephalopods cover protected species under the Habitats Directive and OSPAR Convention as well as commercially-exploited species Due to separate origins in their past assessment processes these two categories currently use different reference-point and target-setting methodology While many of the commercially exploited fish stocks have well-defined biological reference points non-commercial bycatch species although equally impacted by human pressures suffer particularly from a lack of reference points A synthesis of the information provided here is presented in Table 3 of Annex 87



The baseline-setting approach depends on whether the assessed species is rare and listed such as those species listed by the Habitats Directive introduced in 1994 and therefore corresponding to baseline-setting Method C For common andor commercial species the baseline depends on the past state determined as being at a sustainable level as well as the data availability

i For well-sampled speciesstocks (eg by fisheries surveys) a baseline in the past (Baseline-setting Method B) is possible This can also be used for common non-commercial species that are covered by sampling programmes

ii For infrequently sampled speciesstocks (either due to low abundance or not covered by sampling programmes) a mixture of baselines set in the past modelling of reference state together with expert judgment would allow a more robust baseline to be set

The target-setting method also depends on data availability

i For well-sampled species-all methods are possible The choice should be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the available information

ii For infrequently sampled species (either due to low abundance or unsuitability of sampling methods or common species that are sampled but not assessed because they are not of commercial interest) directional trend based targets (direction of change) (Method 1) will be applicable in most cases

Population size (12)

Target-setting Methods 1 and 2 using a mixture of baseline-setting approaches depending on data availability

For many commercial species biological reference points are defined In most cases these are set as limits beyond which the stock would suffer from impaired recruitment Reference levels are either based on lowest observed biomass or on their stock recruit relationship and include a precautionary buffer For non-assessed species the baseline method would be a point in the past (method B) based on the time series of the monitoring programme andor expert judgement on population dynamics and stock recruit relationships

The target-setting Method depends wholly on the presence of reliable information for a number of commercial species the defined reference points can be used for this purpose For speciesstocks that have no reference points a trends-based approach needs to be taken




Target-setting Methods 1 and 2 baseline-setting method B (depending on the beginning of a data series combined with expert judgement at which point in time the population is sustainablehas full reproductive potential)

Although less meaningful trend-setting methods are sometimes the only method available Despite the realisation that there is an ongoing genetic drift in several fish populations (whereby the age at maturity decreases) for the GES descriptor indicator 132 ldquoPopulation genetic structurerdquo there are currently no set reference levels The large fish indicator which tracks the proportion of fish over a certain size is described below

Productivity (production per unit biomass) of key species or trophic groups (41)

Target-setting Method 2 using a mixture of baseline-setting approaches

Although there are some studies on fish egg-production rates fisheries at present have no references for fecundity levels Once spawning stock biomass (SSB) falls below a certain threshold this triggers advice to limit fishing pressure Although recruitment is monitored within fisheries reference points are set indirectly on biomass and fishing pressure in order to infer on recruitment potential

Proportion of selected species at the top of food webs (42)

Target-setting Method 1 and 2 baseline-setting Method B

The Large Fish Indicator (LFI) as specified in the Commission Decision criterion (421) has been adopted as one of the Ecological Quality Objectives in the North Sea The EcoQO for the North Sea demersal fish community has been defined as fish greater than 40cm in length should form greater than 30 of the fish community ICES has for several years provided advice and science support on the indicator (through the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO)) The first quarter (Q1) International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) data were analysed to update the LFI trend The value of the LFI has continued to increase standing at 022 in 2008 against an EcoQO target of gt03 (30) This represents a substantial improvement in the status of the North Searsquos Demersal fish community since its low point of 005 in 2002 Details of the LFI can be found in the 2007 ICES advice to OSPAR (book1 p59)

Abundancedistribution of key Trophic groupsspecies (43)

Target-setting Method 1 baseline mixture of approaches

It is considered that using examples of key species at different trophic levels rather than listed and therefore often rare and therefore rarely monitored and data deficient species could be more relevant to the biodiversity Descriptors 1 and 4

542 Pressure indicators

For commercial fish species pressures are being dealt with in Descriptor 3 in terms of fishing mortality whereby pressure limits are set in relation to maximum sustainable yield

Under descriptor 4 the criteria 431 mentions specifically species that are targeted or impacted by human activities (bycatch or discards) but only as a sub-heading under a state indicator For non-commercial species in particular direct pressure indicators such as discard rates would be more practical to operationalise

With respect to fish and cephalopods it is unlikely that all species will be assessed with identical methods Therefore a selection of good indicator speciesstocks will have to be agreed upon by the various Member States in order for there to be consistency in application


92

543 Potential common indicators for fish

(No targets and indicators have been proposed for cephalopods)

Conclusions

bull The sub group of the OSPAR Biodiversity workshop (Amsterdam November 2011) agreed that common and generic indicators based on comparable indicators that were proposed by Member States were the most suitable approach to take to be able to ensure coherence across sub-regions and regions Such indicators would need to be robust but with sufficient flexibility to adapt to different sub-regions as they represent huge diversity in their characteristics

bull Further work is required to operationalise the four common and generic indicators

bull A number of additional indicators were identified as having potential as common and generic indicators with some proposals for further work

bull In identifying indicators it is important to be able to determine the main driver of change some indicators are not responsive enough to anthropogenic pressures

bull The sub group of the OSPAR Biodiversity workshop (Amsterdam November 2011) found different levels of commonality across the indicators proposed by the Contracting Parties for the different Commission Decision criteria Indicators relating to species distribution and population size were the most promising those relating to population condition demonstrated a range of ideas and may require further investigation to understand which approach would be the most comprehensible to the end user (policy-makers) among the indicators describing the fish community there was broad agreement on the large fish indicator some of the other proposals present more complex theoretical differences and may need more detailed investigation and review

bull Selection of indicator species is not straightforward There was a proposal to select species that are in ldquolong term declinerdquo (eg gt25 years) However given that fisheries had reached their peak in the mid 1980s this time period would already constitute a heavily disturbed and possibly recovering situation and not a sustainable historic baseline In recovery the opportunistic species will decline with slower growing species increasing in numbers therefore careful consideration should be given to the species selected and what the indictor is tracking It is also important that the indicator reflects the time series available in order to ensure the provision of supporting datasets

bull The group agreed that there are still gaps with no indicators or targets developed for example deep sea and coastal species some functional groups size based indicators specific for non-commercial species and genetics In other cases indicators for several functional groups may already be available through the implementation of other directives and could eventually be considered (eg Germany has some indicators for selected anadromous species in the context of the Habitats Directive)

bull The OSPAR Framework is the appropriate mechanism to progress this work and it was considered necessary by the group that arrangements are made to continue this work and take it forwards


Species distribution bull 2 common and generic indicators are proposed

o species distributional range (111) of a suite of selected species eg sensitive species o species distributional pattern (112) of a suite of selected species eg sensitive species



Population size bull 1 common and generic indicator is proposed

population abundancebiomass (121) of a suite of selected species eg sensitive species Population condition bull It was felt there is good potential for 131 (population demographics) analogues of population demographic

indicators from Descriptor 3 to be applied to Descriptor 1 non-commercial species eg Proportion of mature fish in the populations of all species sampled adequately in international and national bottom-trawl groundfish surveys

Habitat condition bull 1 common and generic indicator is proposed

size composition of the fish community OSPAR EcoQO for proportion of large fish for all species from the International Bottom Trawl Survey

bull Several proposals for indicators were considered to have potential but need more theoretical consideration and further testing with different regional datasets eg

bull Mean maximum length of demersal fish and elasmobranchs bull Conservation status of elasmobranch and demersal bony fish species (IUCN) (Calculations based on Piet et

al 2007) bull Size diversity index according to Rochet amp Benoit (submitted) bull Threat indicator Composite index according to Dulvy et al (2006) bull Fish relative abundance Hills N1 indicator of species diversity whereby metrics need to be constructed for

different size categories to capture trophic cascade issues

See Table 43 below See also Table 61 for common parameters relating to Descriptor 4 on food webs


94

Table 43 Common approach towards indicators and targets for GES 1 and 4 fish and cephalopods

The following table outlines the GES indicators and detailed advice on parameters targets and preferred approach ie candidate common indicators The Table uses Descriptor 1 as a starting point and includes references to related indicators in Descriptor 4 The Table is based on responses to an inventory of nationally identified indicators returned by all Contracting Parties except Ireland and Iceland and subsequent discussion in the OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) ICG-COBAM(3) 2011 has further condensed this work into the current Advice Colours indicate the level of consensus in these discussions No proposals were put forward for Cephalopods 1 Agreement Level Green = high Orange = some Red = none black = not enough information 2 Current Monitoring Green = sufficient Orange = some but more required Red = none black = not enough information 3 Pressure ndash see Annex 84 for more detailed definitions of each theme lsquoNo single pressurersquo = no identified links between the parametermetric and a specifc type of pressure 4 Feasibility Already operational some further development of indicatorbaselinetargets required andor more monitoring required concept is sound but requires substantial development and additional monitoring


ParameterMetric1 Target1 Baseline1 Monitoring2 Pressure3

Adviceconsideration

Feasibility4



None Distributional range (eg survey strata depth or geographical spatial units) of a suite of selected species (eg sensitive species adequately sampled (according to specified criteria) by sample gear)

The trend in distributional range should alter in a predictable specified direction towards community recovery

Baseline reflects historical condition where overall exploitation is considered to be sustainable

This indicator can be applied to any species sampled by any survey method commensurate with good scientific practice

No single pressure

Applicability to the Wider Atlantic (Region V) unkown

The criteria for selecting species needs to agreed

Species-specific targets and baselines need to be given further consideration

Species Distributional pattern within the latter where appropriate

121 Population abundancebiomass

Distributional pattern within range (eg survey strata depth or geographical spatial units) of a suite of

The trend in distributional pattern should alter in a predictable specified

Baseline reflects historical condition where overall exploitation is

This indicator can be applied to any species sampled by any survey method commensurate

No single pressure

May be desirable to prioritise or link indicators that contribute to this target (principle effect of the pressure will be



(112) selected species (eg sensitive species adequately sampled (according to specified criteria) by sample gear)

direction towards community recovery

considered to be sustainable

with good scientific practice

to reduce abundance this will generally lead to reductions in distribution range and increased patchiness)



12 Population size


Population abundance biomass of a suite of selected species (eg sensitive species adequately sampled (according to specified criteria) by sample gear)

The trend in population abundance biomass should alter in a predictable specified direction towards community recovery



No single pressure



Bycatch rates of Chondrichthyes

Reduce the bycatch in cartilaginous fishes

Use data from observer programme

Biological pressure

Consideration should be given to extending the bycatch indicator to all vulnerable species particularly those not covered by monitoring programmes



Proportion of mature fish in the populations of all species sampled adequately in international and national fish surveys

Progress expert discussions to define the target

Testing is also required

Cross reference to D3 progress


96


Condition of the typical species and communities (161)

421 Large fish

OSPAR EcoQO for proportion of large fish for all species from the International Bottom Trawl Survey

NB Moved by ICG-COBAM from 17 because the indicator is at the community level and not the ecosystem level

For each region the proportion (by weight) of fish greater than a specific size in length caught during routine demersal fish surveys (eg the ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey) should be greater than a defined target (eg 03 for the North Sea)


This indicator can only be applied to surveys that sample the community

No single pressure

Targets to be established for each marine region relative to a region specific reference period and dependent on the species composition included in the indicator calculation Being a food web metric pelagic species may be included - thus new targets will need to be established

Consideration needs to be given to fish communities that are currently not regularly surveyed (eg deepsea fish)

Conservation status of elasmobranch and demersal bony-fish speciesa (IUCN)

Reference level as given in DCF=gt1 for a) decreasing trend for b)


No single pressure

The relationship with GES needs to be described

Mean maximum length of demersal fish and elasmobranchs

a stable or increasing trend



No single pressure

Targets to be established for each marine region relative to a region specific reference period and dependent on the species composition included in the indicator calculation



6 Descriptor 2 ndash Non indigenous species 61 Introduction

In the context of the bidiversity descriptors dealt with in this Advice Manual Descriptor 2 merits special attention given that it represents a pressure on native biodiversity rather that a state-based aspect of biodiversity assessment Non-indigenous species (NIS) which become invasive provide one of the greatest threats to biodiversity across the globe These invasive species are known under the Convention on Biological Diversity as invasive alien species (IAS) The huge ecological and economic impacts imposed by the minority of NIS that become invasive are increasingly being understood It has been estimated that damage caused by invasive species worldwide amounts to almost five percent of the world economy50

To understand the scope of Descriptor 2 general clarification on definitions is needed

62 Definitions for Descriptor 2 Non-indigenous species (NIS) can be defined as lsquospecies subspecies or lower taxa introduced outside of their natural range (past or present) and outside of their natural dispersal potential This includes any part gamete or propagule of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce Their presence in the given region is due to intentional or unintentional introduction resulting from human activitiesrsquo or they have spread from an area where they are considered non-indigenous (secondary introduction)51

Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is synonymous with Invasive Non-Indigenous Species (the term used within the Commission Decision) Invasive NIS are a lsquosubset of NIS which have spread are spreading or have demonstrated their potential to spread elsewhere and have an adverse effect on biological diversity ecosystem functioning socio-economic values andor human health in invaded regionsrsquo52 Only a minority of NIS become invasive

The impact invasive NIS have on the environment to which they have been introduced (described as lsquobiological pollutionrsquo53) can be categorised at various levels

- Individual (internal biological pollution by parasites or pathogens)

- Population (by genetic change)

- Community (structural shift)

- Habitat (modification of physical-chemical conditions)

- Ecosystem (alteration of energy and organic material flow)54

These adverse effects can be almost immediate or develop over time For example the Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis) arrived on UK shores around 60 years ago via ballast water but showed no signs

50 Defra (2008) The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain 51 Non-Indigenous Species Task Group Report 2010 52 Non-Indigenous Species Task Group Report 2010 53 Non-Indigenous Species Task Group Report 2010 54 Non-Indigenous Species Task Group Report 2010

98

of being invasive Dry conditions during the late 1990s reduced the flow of rivers in the south allowing an expansion of the migratory breeding pattern They are now considered invasive due to damage to streams and rivers (burrowing) and predation on native species55

63 Issues with selecting targets Any targets andor measures introduced under Descriptor 2 should be considered at the sub-regional or broader level National prevention measures may be ineffective if operated in isolation due to the methods of introduction (eg via ballast water)

It is recommended that targets should be developed for newly-introduced species and where action can be taken to reduce the impact of an existing invasive NIS It may not be cost-effective or appropriate to set targets where species are already well-established and where eradication andor the reduction of their impact is impossible This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis

Pressure targets for this Descriptor will not be considered here and will be taken forward by EIHA

64 Existing targets and indicators

641 International objectives

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) framework goal relevant to invasive NIS (or IAS) is to control threats from invasive alien species and the two targets are to

bull Control pathways for major potential invasive alien species and to

bull Have management plans in place for major alien species that threaten ecosystems habitats or species (UNEP 2005) 56

Further CBD strategic goals and 2020 headline targets were agreed at the 2010 lsquoRevision of the Strategic Plan for the Post 2010 Periodrsquo meeting in Nagoya Japan The relevant additional target is

bull By 2020 invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized priority species are controlled or eradicated and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment

642 EU-level objectives

To progress towards the 2020 target to halt the loss of biodiversity the EU (through the EEA Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators) outlined a strategy for the development of this target ndash breaking it down into indicators which can be developed and measured These include

bull Numbers of alien species in Europe since 1900

bull Worst invasive species threatening biodiversity across Europe

bull Impact abundance of invasive NIS

bull Cost analysis of invasive NIS

55 IUCN Marine Menace ndash Alien invasive species in the marine environment 56 UNEP (2005) ndash [to be added]



The Commission is developing a Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) by 2012

The Water Framework Directive although not specifically mentioning NIS through the text refers to NIS in both Annex II and V indicating that they need to be assessed both as environmental pressures and because they undermine lsquonaturalnessrsquo

65 Baseline for targets Due to lack of data and a full understanding of how NIS are introduced where they occur how abundant they are and factors influencing their survival establishing baseline information for trend comparisons may be very difficult Furthermore secondary spread of these species may occur due to human mediated dispersal via local vectors eg regional shipping shellfish movements or via natural dispersal facilitated by climate change Therefore it is recommended that an important feature of targets under this descriptor should be to prevent transfer of species (addressing pathways and vectors) which will inevitably lead to lower incidences of new introductions of invasive NIS despite the difficulties in identifying a trend through monitoring

Current knowledge on NIS tends to focus on coastal and nearshore habitats where most studies and identification of new arrivals is undertaken Consequently NIS are generally a lsquocoastalnearshorersquo phenomenon as data are sparse or non-existent for offshore and deep-water areas Where genetic studies of assumed lsquonativersquo species are undertaken it can reveal well-established species are actually NIS As such our knowledge base and consequent action may be biased towards coastalnearshore areas

66 Criteria from the Commission Decision 21 Abundance and state characterisation of non-indigenous species in particular invasive species

bull Trends in abundance temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of NIS particularly invasive NIS notably in risk areas in relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreading of such species (211)

It may not be possible to develop targets on the basis of abundance occurrence and spatial distribution of invasive NIS due to the lack of sufficiently detailed knowledge on their current status Such targets are also constrained by the difficulty of removing these species once they have become established in any location

Trend-based targets for new introductions of NIS however may be possible using a combination of best available information on abundancedistribution and expert judgement Such targets could however be based on long-term monitoring at high-risk sites for example in selected marinas or ports

Pathwayvector management targets to prevent or at least minimise the risk of introduction and spread of NIS should be adopted in the first instance Given that only a proportion of these species become established and only some will be invasive these measures maximise the potential to reduce adverse impacts and associated costs

100

22 Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species

bull Ratio between invasive NIS and native species in some well studied taxonomic groups (eg fish macroalgae molluscs) that may provide a measure of change in species composition (eg further to the displacement of native species) (221)

bull Impacts of invasive NIS at the level of species habitats and ecosystem where feasible (222)

Trend-based targets based on some form of bio-pollution index may be possible although the methods are currently not well developed within the marine environment Such targets could however be based on monitoring at sites of high conservation value (Marine Protected Areas) or high-risk areas (marinas and ports)

Targets could focus on the reduction in the impact of NIS through implementation of effective management measures This could include horizon scanning to identify potential new threats and development of contingencyrapid response plans for species indentified as at high risk of being introduced by 2020

67 Risk-based approach The high-level framework in Figure 11 details key actions required to address the problems caused by IAS and could provide the basic tool to support GES This strategy is already adopted in the terrestrial and freshwater environment and follows the three-stage hierarchical approach adopted by the CBD [reference to be added] as the main ways of dealing with invasive NIS

Stage 1 Identification of invasive NIS and risk analysis mechanism using lsquoblack listsrsquo andor EUOSPAR species monitoring portal

Stage 2 Prevention - is given the highest priority throughout all NISIAS strategies this maximises the potential for reducing adverse impacts and the costs associated with tackling invasions once they have become established

Stage 3 Detection surveillance monitoring ndash currently information on marine invasive NIS is sporadic across the sub-region Potential need to establish a coordinated data point including taxon-specific bodies

Stage 4 Control and eradication ndash this would include rapid measures to eradicate new invasive NIS Once established there is little evidence that the control of species through containing them within a limited area preventing (or slowing) their spread or eradication in particular areas has worked in the marine environment

68 Target-setting decision tree To ensure a coordinated approach to this Descriptor a set of principles for assessing and identifying what actions are feasible in respect of NISIAS has been developed



Figure 11 Decision tree for non-indigenous species

69 Potential common indicators for non-indigenous species Conclusions Two potential common indicators were defined both of them in need of further development One indicator relates to Commission Decision indicator 211 (see below) and the other is an operational

102

indicator pathways management measures to prevent the transfer of species It was questioned whether such a target will be acceptable Advice per Commission Decision indicator Abundance amp state of NIS in particular invasives

bull proposed common indicator rate of new introductions of NIS (per defined period)

bull All indicators proposed by Contracting Parties were for COM indicator 211 (abundance occurrence distribution) The targets were all trend reductions targets which would require minor changes to ensure consistency

bull Key areas for clarification on Commission Decision criterion 211 included

bull Should targets be developed for all NIS including those already established or limited to newly-introduced species

bull Should targets only consider invasive NIS (IAS)

bull Is it cost-effective or appropriate to set targets where species are already well- established and where eradication andor the reduction of their impact is potentially impossible

bull Is it possible to set trend comparison targets where baseline data are lacking and understanding of how NIS are introduced where they occur how abundant they are and factors influencing their survival is limited

bull Is it possible to develop robust indicators and targets on the basis of numbers and distribution of IAS in sub-regional waters where knowledge of their current status is limited

bull Should the management measures which are currently available at international level be considered as targets Eg IMO Ballast Water Management and the EU Regulation on alien species in aquaculture (7082007EC) which will prevent species with a high risk of environmental impact being introduced

Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species

bull From the inventory of Member State indicators it appeared that one target was proposed under 221 which replicated those provided under 21 and one in regards to high risk species specific action plans Two other proposals have been suggested including using surveillance indicators to gather data for Commission Decision criterion 221 (Ratio of Invasive NISnative species) and use of the Bio-Pollution Level Index (BPL) to establish the level of NIS impacts on the ecosystem component (Commission Decision criterion 222) without targets attached to them

bull No potential common indicators were identified under this Commission Decision indicator



Table 51 Common approach towards indicators and targets for GES 2 NIS

The following table outlines the GES indicators and detailed advice on parameters targets and preferred approach ie candidate common indicators The Table is based on responses to an inventory of nationally identified indicators returned by all Contracting Parties except Ireland and Iceland and subsequent discussion in the OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) ICG-COBAM(3) 2011 has further condensed this work into the current advice Colours indicate the level of consensus in these discussions 1 Agreement Level Green = high Orange = some Red = none black = not enough information 2 Current Monitoring Green = sufficient Orange = some but more required Red = none black = not enough information 3 Pressure ndash see Annex 84 for more detailed definitions of each theme lsquoNo single pressurersquo = no identified links between the parametermetric and a specifc type of pressure


ParameterMetric1

Target1 Baseline1 Monitoring2

Pressure3

Adviceconsideration

21 Abundance and state characterisation of non-indigenous species in particular invasive species

Trends in abundance temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species particularly invasive non-indigenous species notably in risk areas in relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreading of such species (211)

None Rate of new introductions (per defined period)

Reductionpreventiontranslocation of new introductions by anthropogenic activities

Or

Trend of New introductions of non indigenous species towards zero

Reduction in the risk of introduction of non native species through improved management of the

Not specified

Not specified

Lack of baseline data

what are the main pathways vectors How is reduction in the risk defined and how can this be monitored

104

Pathways management measures

main pathways vectors

In development


Ratio between invasive non-indigenous species and native species in some well studied taxonomic groups (eg fish macroalgae molluscs) that may provide a measure of change in species composition (eg further to the displacement of native species) (221)

Gap identified in regards to 22 Some CP proposals could be considered if further information is provided

Impacts of non-indigenous invasive species at the level of species habitats and ecosystem where feasible (222)



106

7 Current status of assessment methods for the biodiversity descriptors

71 D1 Biodiversity The very broad scope of this Descriptor makes its successful implementation a challenge particularly for those Member States with very large sea areas As a general guide it is recommended to focus on pressures and impacts to enable an assessment of risks to biodiversity (areas and biodiversity components most likey to be affected) and hence a more targeted approach to identification of targets indicators monitoring and measures)

The principles of assessment techniques for species and habitats are reasonably well established with recent experience of similar approaches (in terms of criteria and scales) under the Habitats Directive However other methods exist (eg OSPAR listing IUCN) and the application of these principles and availability of data are less well-established There is a need to more firmly incorporate systematic assessments of pressures and impacts at large geographical scales in order to develop robust data-driven assessments The setting of targets and identification of indicators has traditionally had a state-based focus often with poor linkages to impacts pressures and ultimately to measures this may be less effective for MSFD purposes to achieve GES Most of the Commission Decision indicators need to be operationalised by making them specific to particular species habitats and areas (eg sub-regions)

Assessments at functional group level (for fish birds mammals) are less well-established although the recent development of a seabird EcoQO offers appropriate metrics Current work within ICG COBAM is focused on identification of suitable species to represent the wider status of the functional groups Assessment techniques at ecosystem level are poorly developed and will need further efforts

It is likely that use of existing biodiversity targets and indicators will provide only a partial picture of overall needs for this descriptor with a need to develop further targets and indicators to address the predominant habitat types and functional groups Due to a lack of indicators in some aspects there is likely to be a need for continued developments for this Descriptor beyond 2012

72 D2 Non-indigenous species This descriptor is treated as a pressure having impacts on native biodiversity the assessment of impacts from non-natives (eg the bio-pollution level (BPL) index) needs refinement It may be appropriate to use indicators for this Descriptor (eg on the state of invasive species) but recognise that their reductioneradication may not be feasible Because of this targets may best be associated with measures (ie prevention of new introductions) EIHA leads on measures for this Descriptor

73 D3 Commercial fish and shellfish This Descriptor is not addressed directly in this Manual but it has strong connections with the assessment of fish under Descriptor 1 (eg use of similar approaches) and because the effects of commercial fishing need to be taken into account (ie as impacts) on other aspects of biodiversity notably functional groups of species seabed habitats food webs and sea-floor integrity



74 D4 Food webs This is the least well-developed of the biodiversity Descriptors as metrics and indicators are generally not well-established The Large Fish EcoQO for the North Sea is an exception and could be adapted for application in other sub-regions For other aspects the careful selection of species and habitats for assessment of Descriptor 1 and 6 should provide the necessary underpinning information to develop suitable indicators

Table 61 was developed during the meeting of ICG COBAM (3) 2011 which was held in Madrid on 28-30 November 2011 It consists of compositions from tables on the different species from MSFD Descriptor 1 (mammals fish and birds) (cf Chapter 5) and on contributions from the workshop on MSFD biodiversity descriptors which was held in Amsterdam in November 2011 (indicated in yellow)

75 D6 Sea-floor integrity This Descriptor has much in common with assessment of habitats under Descriptor 1 For efficiency it is therefore recommended to treat the two together with assessment of seabed substrate types under Descriptor 6 aligned with the predominant habitat types of Descriptor 1 and with common assessment of seabed quality and setting of targets eg for reductions in impacts Whilst the Commission Decision indicators for Descriptor 6 are more oriented towards functioning of seabed communities they are compatible with and complementary to those used for Descriptor 1 As for Descriptor 1 an overall assessment of the substrate types needs to assess the extent of impact from all pressures affecting the seabed at the scale of the assessment area

76 Potential common indicators for food webs A Table was developed at the OSPAR Biodiversity Workshop (Amsterdam November 2011) gathering all proposed indicators for Descriptor 4 from the indicators proposed across the various ecosystem components In total 31 proposed indicators were identified of which 6 were exclusively mentioned for Descriptor 4 Initial questions and comments regarding the (suitability of the) proposed indicators were collected from participatns Due to the short time available further discussions on the proposed indicators were not possible Next steps are to develop a lsquowhite paperrsquo on Food webs and to seek expert advice for instance through the creation of a joint OSPARHELCOM expert group

108

Table 61 Common approach toward indicators and targets for GES 4

The following table outlines the GES indicators and detailed advice on parameters targets and preferred approach ie candidate common indicators The Table is based on responses to an inventory of nationally identified indicators returned by all Contracting Parties except Ireland and Iceland and subsequent discussion in the OSPAR biodiversity workshop (2-4 November 2011 Amsterdam) ICG-COBAM(3) 2011 has further condensed this work into the current advice Colours indicate the level of consensus in these discussions 1Agreement Level Green = high Orange = some Red = none black = not enough information 2Current Monitoring Green = sufficient Orange = some but more required Red = none black = not enough information 3Feasibility Already operational some further development of indicatorbaselinetargets required andor more monitoring required concept is sound but requires substantial development and additional monitoring


ParameterMetric Target Baseline Monitoring Pressure

Advice

consideration

Feasibility

41 Productivity of key species or trophic groups

Performance of key predator species using their production per unit biomass (productivity) (411)

Annual breeding success of kittiwake




Biological disturbance ndash selective extraction of species including incidental non-targets catches


Further data analysis by CPrsquos to determine colony-specific baselines and targets

Further discussion needed between CP experts to


b) coordinate data collation and





Advice

consideration

Feasibility

reporting across CPs

breeding succes of key predators

natural breeding succes

Abundance of prey fish species of grey seals Abundance of prey fish species of harbour seals

No decline in abundance of the main prey species of grey and harbour seals (both total and individual species) (separated by up to five years OSPAR) on the Dutch Continental Shelf

42 Proportion of selected species at the top of food webs

Large fish (by weight) (421)

Fish


Fish


Fish


Fish


Fish

Removal of species

Fish



110



Advice

consideration

Feasibility






Removal of species


43 Abundancedistribution of key trophic groupsspecies

Abundance trends of functionally important selected groupsspecies (431)

Mammalsreptiles

Numbers of individuals within species (mammals and reptiles) being bycaught in relation to population estimates

Mammalsreptiles

Less than 17 of the population of harbour porpoise

Mammalsreptiles

Current population

Mammalsreptiles

No regular monitoring of the population This may suppose a dificulty to apply the indicator

Fishing

Mammalsreptiles

EcoQO for harbour porpoise to be expanded to other species The selected species may vary among CCPP linked to sub-regional





Advice

consideration

Feasibility

differences

Numbers of individuals within species (mamals and reptiles) being bycaught

Decreasing trend


Different rate of implementation of monitoring programs among CCPP

Fishing

The applicability of this indicator seems to be higher since no population estimates are needed On the other hand the usefullness of the indicator is limited because it is not directly related to the state of the populations The selected species may vary among CCPP linked to sub-regional differences

Fish


Fish


Fish


Removal of non-target species

Fish

Consideration should be given to extending the bycatch indicator to all vunerable species particularly those not covered by monitoring programmes

Seabirds

Species-specific trends in relative abundance of non-breeding and breeding marine bird species in all functional groups

Seabirds

Changes in abundance of marine birds should be within individual target levels in 75 of species monitored (separate assessments for

Seabirds


Seabirds

Monitoring at-sea of aggregations of seabirds in North Sea is confined to waters of DE BE DK NL SE FR None in Celtic Seas UK is currently scoping a monitoring

No single pressure

Seabirds

Target and indicator are based on the draft EcoQO on seabird population trends Target threshold of 75 proposed by ICES (2008) UK to put out to consultation two

112



Advice

consideration

Feasibility

each functional group and for breeding and non-breeding aggregations) Species-specific annual breeding abundance should be more than x and less than y of the baseline (values of x and y can be species-specific)

scheme for offshore seabirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas coastal waters Monitoring of shorebirds in North Sea and Celtic Seas concentrated in transitional waters so may need additional monitoring of coastal waters

options 75 and 90





d) coordinate data collation and reporting across CPs

Breeding successfailure of seabird species

Less than 5-15 of colonies failing (breeding success lt 01 chicks per nest) per year per year in more than three out of six-years

NA Breeding success data collected by all relevant CPs for certain species Need to determine if sufficient collected in each sub-region to construct an indicator

No single pressure

Agreed that an indicator based on breeding success or failure should be developed for a wider range of species to monitor whether the kitttiwake target is indicative of GES accross the wider community of marine birds Further discussion needed between CP experts to

a) agree on proposed targets





Advice

consideration

Feasibility

and b) select indicator species











Biovolumina Phytoplankton

watertype specific biovolume between 3 and 8 mmsup3middotLmacrsup1 within offshore regions slightly below the lowest value from the coast

Change of plankton functional types (life form) index Ratio between Gelatinous zooplankton amp Fish larvae Copepods amp Phytoplankton Holoplankton amp Meroplankton

plankton community not significantly influenced by anthropogenic drivers

Dietary functional group biomass Biomass of pelagic planktivores pelagic

NA

114



Advice

consideration

Feasibility

piscivores demersal benthivores demersal piscivores and omnivores benthos

Relative use of haulouts by grey and harbour seals

NA



8 Annexes 81 Lessons learned and conclusions from the OSPARMSFD workshop on approaches to determining GES for biodiversity held in Utrecht The Netherlands 23-24 November 2010 Cf Section 13

Lessons learnt from other Directives and Regional Sea Conventions were

a indicators and targets should be as simple as possible pragmatic and provide the necessary information required for assessment and management

b in addition to understanding population size and distribution or habitat extent and distribution it is also important to assess the condition or health of species and habitats as part of Good Environmental Status (all aspects are criteria in the Commission Decision)

c in order to assess the biodiversity status of each functional group and predominant habitat type it is likely to be necessary to select specific species and habitats which can best represent each group or habitat type and which preferably are supported by sufficient data and are particularly sensitive to one or more anthropogenic pressures The special habitats and species which are subject to Community legislation or international conventions are also to be assessed some of these may also be used to contribute to the assessments of the functional groups and predominant habitats in which they occur

d the MSFD process should wherever possible be based on sound science and the precautionary principle

e using a combination of approaches to determine the baseline against which to set targets was felt to be the most robust approach Expert judgement plays an important role in determining baselines and setting targets but it is important that the provision of expert judgement is transparent and based on predefined and consistent criteriaguidance

f coordination of targets and baselines across Contracting Parties can be challenging but is needed to reflect biodiversityrsquos ecological rather than administrative patterns of distribution

g harmonisation of monitoring methods is not necessary provided that results are comparable

h setting of targets needs to allow for flexibility and evolution over time as knowledge gaps are filled and assessment and management concepts refined

i it is important to define the threshold in both qualitative and quantitative terms at which GES is met as use of only trend-based targets gives no clear indication of when good status is achieved

j It is necessary to take regional as well as sub-regional characteristics into account and to decide - where appropriate - on the setting of targets and indicators on the level of sub-regions or sub-dividsions

General workshop conclusions were

Mixtures of approaches are required in order to establish a baseline from which GES can be determined

a for the species groups and the pelagic habitat this comprises a baseline set as a past (Method B) or current state (Method C) in addition to expert judgement

b for the sediment and rock habitat groups the balance tended to lie with a combination of current or past reference states (Methods Ai-iii) again combined with expert judgment

Data availability and data quality is critical to being able to establish baselines and identify appropriate targets

116

The European marine environment is not in a truly unimpacted state The pressures put upon the oceans by man have wide-reaching effects The concept of truly unimpacted sites (ie sites where the state is equal to that found before any human impact was experienced) was therefore felt not to be helpful moving forwards Alternatively the concept for reference state should refer to lsquoa state at which the anthropogenic influences on species and habitats are considered to be negligiblersquo

The target-setting process apart from being based on the given Descriptors of GES and on the precautionary principle will also need to reflect on aspirations for the sustainable use of the marine environment (as set out within the MSFD)

It was clear from discussions at this GES4BIO workshop that establishing state targets for GES is challenging and that impact and pressure targets may need to be used as a proxy for state in some cases This could be particularly important in the context of defining population sizes for mobile species where predator-prey dynamics and their high mobility provide long-term uncertainties over their population sizes in given areas

The different species groups and habitat types of the marine environment are dynamic and inextricably linked The targets that are set for GES cannot therefore be considered in isolation In successfully progressing towards one particular target there may be implications for other targets

The overall concepts applied in the Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive of defining good status as target values in relation to defined baselines (reference points) was considered appropriate for biodiversity application in MSFD However further consideration was needed on the basis for setting these baselines and on defining targets at acceptable levels of deviation from these baselines For example MSFD baselines should take account of distributions and abundances of species and habitats that have been lost in the past eg Flat oyster bed habitats Using a baseline set at the current state would mask previous deteriorations in range extent and condition of habitats and species

Approaches used in some OSPAR EcoQOs (eg for the seabird group) were considered appropriate for the purposes of the MSFD as they are easy to understand pragmatic and supported by monitoring data Species on the OSPAR List of threatened andor declining species are in many cases less suitable for use as indicators for relevant functional groups within MSFD in cases where they are scarce and thus difficult to monitor It is however necessary to select at least key species of this list which are known to respond to certain pressures

Without an articulation of GES it will be very difficult to set concrete state targets It will nevertheless be possible to recognise a degraded environment and how steps might be taken to reduce impacts by managing the pressures

It is anticipated that it will not be possible by 2012 to have a final refined picture of GES what it means and how progress towards GES can be measured There is still a need to further evolve the thinking behind the concepts and some information is not yet available It is therefore conceivable that by 2012 the initial assessment set of GES characteristics environmental targets and associated indicators will be a first attempt with the opportunity for further development and refinement in the subsequent six-year reporting period The perspective of the European Commission is that it is imperative to be as clear as possible as to the meaning of GES (ie the state-based targets) as this should not change significantly with time but may be refined on the basis of new evidence



82 Terminology Cf section 22 263

Terminology of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Final version (22 February 2011)

The attached list of common terminologiesdefinitions for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) has been developed by the OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (ICG COBAM) in relation to biodiversity issues in the first place The Intersessional Correspondence Group for the Implementation of the MSFD (ICG-MSFD) agreed to distribute it to other OSPAR subsidiary bodies for consistent application and supplementation by these bodies if such supplementation is considered necessary ICG-MSFD also agreed to make this document available to the EU Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) for its deliberations

Background

The terminology of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD 200856EC) of the EU Commissionrsquos Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010477EU) and of relevant guidance literature (eg the report of ICESJRC Task Group 1) is neither consistent nor self-explanatory Therefore a proposal of definitions and interpretations was submitted by Germany to OSPARrsquos Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring (ICG-COBAM) in July 2010 and has been further developed by ICG-COBAM until its January 2011 meeting where it was agreed with minor changes (ICG-COBAM(1) 111101-E Annex 4) A contentious section of the definition of lsquoEnvironmental targetsrsquo has been deleted in the attached final version It was replaced by a reference to Annex IV to Directive 200856EC

Several terms in the appended list have a focus on biodiversity-related aspects of the MSFD such as lsquolisted featuresrsquo or lsquopredominant habitat typersquo since it is the task of ICG-COBAM to develop guidance for the primarily state-based Descriptors biodiversity (D1) non-indigenous species (D2) marine food webs (D4) and sea-floor integrity (D6) The interpretations delivered for the more generic terms however are applicable to the implementation of the MSFD in general

ICG-MSFD(1) 2011 agreed to distribute the MSFD terminology to other OSPAR subsidiary bodies for consistent application These bodies may supplement the list with additional termsdefinitions if so required However the list is not meant to be exhaustive but should rather be restricted to key terms for the implementation of the Directive and there is no intention to include basic terms such as lsquoassessmentrsquo

ICG-MSFD decided furthermore to submit this document to the WG GES as contribution to the development of more generic advice on common terminology (ICG-MSFD(1) 1181 sect 43 (b)(i))

In particular the document is not intended to amend the legal definitions (eg lsquoenvironmental targetrsquo) given in the Directive but to take these as a basis and to provide a pragmatic approach to their interpretation where this is considered helpful or necessary

118

List of terms

lsquoGood Environmental Status (GES)rsquo

The desired state of the marine environment and its components A definition is provided in Art 35 of the Directive and defined in terms of 11 Descriptors in Annex I of the Directive More specifically it is determined for a number of criteria and indicators as given by the EU Commissions Decision on criteria and methodological standards

lsquoCriterionrsquo

Specific criteria are listed for each GES Descriptor in Part B of the annex to the September 2010 Decision document For instance ldquoSpecies Distributionrdquo of a relevant species or species functional group is criterion 11 for Descriptor 1 ldquoBiological Diversity is maintainedhelliprdquo To avoid confusion between the use of the term ldquocriteriardquo in this specific context and its use in other respects (such as the criteria used to guide indicator selection) it is recommended these specific criteria be referred to as ldquoGES criteriardquo

For Descriptor 1 lsquocriteriarsquo refer to particular aspects of biodiversity that require their status to be assessed through the application of appropriate indicators to determine whether each aspect meets good environmental status or not Thus the population size of a particular species or functional group of species is a criterion by which to judge whether that aspect of biodiversity in a particular region meets good environmental status or not Similarly the habitat extent is a criterion to judge whether the habitat in a specified region meets GES or not

lsquoEnvironmental targetrsquo

According to Art 3 (MSFD) environmental target means a qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components of and pressures and impacts on marine waters in respect of each marine region or sub-region According to Art 10 environmental targets are needed to guide progress towards achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) and shall take into account Annex III Table 2 and the characteristics set out in Annex IV

lsquoIndicatorrsquo

Given the complexity of biodiversity both in its range of character and the number of aspects that contribute to an assessment of state it is common practice to use a set of indicators to assist in monitoring and assessment programmes and to help simplify this complexity There are a variety of different types of indicators state (including impact) pressure and response These help limit the number of parameters that need to be monitored to those which can most effectively represent wider functional and structural aspects of the ecosystem Where possible state indicators should closely respond (in space and time) to a particular anthropogenic pressure (by responding to the impact of the pressure) and hence be linked to associated management requirements

The assessment of environmental state provided by one or more indicators should allow inferences to be made on the wider state of biodiversity components in that ecosystem State means the actual (measured or otherwise assessed) environmental condition (eg of a species species functional group community or habitat) in a given geographical area The assessment of state can be derived by taking direct measurements of the particular biodiversity component (lsquostate indicatorsrsquo) or indirectly by measuring the prevailing anthropogenic pressures (lsquopressure indicatorsrsquo) In this latter case impacts of these pressures on biodiversity must be known For assessments of ecosystem state simple indicators (eg the size of a bird population) or more complex indicators (eg the ratio of multiple phytoplankton taxa) can be applied

State indicators (which reflect impacts from anthropogenic pressures) have been widely evaluated by ICES expert groups There are a number of criteria that may be considered when determining the utility and applicability of this type of indicator (Table 1)



Table 1 State Indicator selection criteria (adapted from ICES and UK scientific indicator evaluation)

Criterion Specification

Sensitivity Does the indicator allow detection of any type of change against background variation or noise

Accuracy Is the indicator measured with a low error rate

Specificity Does the indicator respond primarily to a particular human pressure with low responsiveness to other causes of change

Simplicity Is the indicator easily measured

Responsiveness Is the indicator able to act as an early warning signal

Spatial applicability

Is the indicator measurable over a large proportion of the geographical to which it is to apply eg if the indicator is used at a UK level is it possible to measure the required parameter(s) across this entire range or is it localised to one small scale area

Management link Is the indicator tightly linked to an activity which can be managed to reduce its negative effects on the indicator ie are the quantitative trends in cause and effect of change well known

Validity Is the indicator based on an existing body or time series of data (either continuous or interrupted) to allow a realistic setting of objectives

Communication Is the indicator relatively easy to understand by non-scientists and those who will decide on their use

Additionally it is usually necessary to consider the effort (cost) of implementing such indicators

Indicators under the MSFD are considered to be specific attributes of each GES criterion that can either be qualitatively described or quantitatively assessed to determine whether each criterion meets good environmental status or to ascertain how far each criterion departs from GES

In the framework of the MSFD indicators are to be applied for two different tasks

Firstly for the assessments required under this directive state and pressure indicators are used to assess differences between actual state and desired state (GES) Here the indicators given in the EU Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards (acc Art 9) form the basis The indicators under several descriptors in this guidance (in particular D1 and D4) cannot be considered operational until specific and representative biodiversity components (eg species and habitats) as well as more specific metrics have been defined for each indicator

Secondly indicators are to be applied to reflect progress in achieving environmental targets The indicators to be developed under Art 10 (associated with environmental targets) may be identical to the indicators of the EU Commission Decision on GES However the development of additional indicators in particular pressure indicators may be necessary (eg indicating vectors of non-indigenous species or bycatch of seabirds and marine mammals)

In general the geographical scale for the application of indicators needs to be defined since environmental conditions may be different between and within marine regions

120

lsquoIndexrsquo

An index represents the aggregated measurement or calculated derivative of several different lsquoparametersrsquo usually determined across different biodiversity components In ecology indices are frequently used to inform on biological variety in any given area or point in time The degree of variety can be assessed on various levels eg at the level of species genes or habitats Most commonly such indices are determined at the level of species eg the Shannon-Wiener-Index representing species diversity This index is calculated using the species abundance lsquoparametersrsquo for all species in any given sample and total of all individuals included in the sample Within MSFD assessments indices may be applied as complex indicators

lsquoParameterrsquo lsquoMetricrsquo

A parameter or metric is a measureable single characteristic of a species or habitat (eg number of individuals biomass in gdry weight sediment particle size diameter in mm) Parameters of this nature can be used as simple indicators and indeed several such metrics are included in the list of indicators provided in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators (eg indicator 121 population biomass)

lsquoReference statersquo lsquoReference conditionsrsquo

The value or range of values of state at which impacts from anthropogenic pressures are absent or negligible Values used to define the reference state should be directly linked to the GES criteria used for assessment They will vary in relation to prevailing physiographic and geographic conditions and may vary over time in relation to changing climatic conditions

lsquoBaselinersquo

The value of state at a specific point against which subsequent values of state are compared Baselines act as yardstick against which thresholds or trends for GES can be set Baselines can be derived from i) reference stateconditions ii) a known state in the past such as the beginning of a time series (eg the Large Fish Indicator used since 1983 as a first valid data point in the time series) or iii) as a present state A baseline can be considered a type of reference point (as referred to in Annex IV of the Directive) though the term lsquoreference pointrsquo should not be confused with lsquoreference state or reference conditionsrsquo as defined above

lsquoPressurersquo

The mechanism (physical chemical or biological) through which a human activity has a direct or indirect adverse effect on any part of the ecosystem eg physical disturbance to the seabed

lsquoEcosystem componentrsquo

A part of biological diversity representing a specific biological entity (eg a species species group population community or habitat typebiotope) A standardised set of components (functional groups of species and predominant habitats types) is recommended for use to assess biodiversity



lsquoFunctional groups of speciesrsquo

An ecologically relevant set of species applied here in particular to the following (highly) mobile species groups birds reptiles marine mammals fish and cephalopods Each functional group represents a predominant ecological role (eg offshore surface-feeding birds demersal fish) within the species group Referred to in the Commission Decision on criteria and indicators (Part B species) and in the ICESJRC Task Group 1 -report (as ecotype)

lsquoPredominant habitat typersquo

Habitat category referred to in Table 1 of Annex III to the Directive Widely occurring and broadly defined habitat types (eg shelf sublittoral sand or mud) that are typically not covered by other legislation (see lsquospecial habitat typesrsquo)

lsquoListed featuresrsquo

Species or habitat types which are listed under Community legislation (eg Birds and Habitats Directive) or international conventions (for protection) Table 1 of Annex III to the Directive refers to these habitat types as lsquospecialrsquo For descriptors and criteria assessing biodiversity state (in particular Descriptor 1) listed features shall be linked to specific indicators

lsquoSpecial habitat typesrsquo

Referred to in Table 1 of Annex III to the Directive as types identified under other Community legislation or international conventions (ldquoas being of special scientific or biodiversity interestrdquo see lsquolisted featuresrsquo)

122

83 EcoQOs and links to GES criteria Cf Section 321

Table 2 Overview of the relation between OSPAR EcoQOs and the GES Descriptors and criteria

GES EcoQOs 11 21 22 31 32 33 34 35 41 51 52 71 81 9 (1-5)

1 Biodiversity 11

12

13

12 13 12

X X

2 Non-indigenous species

3 Commercial fish 321

4 Food webs 43 43 43 421

5 Eutrophication 511amp2

521-4

531-2

6 Sea-floor integrity

7 Hydrographical conditions

8 Contaminants 82257 81 821

9 Contaminants in seafood

10 Marine litter 1021

11 Energy including noise

Key to EcoQOs for the North Sea 11 spawning stock biomass of commercial fish species 21 seal population trends 22 bycatch of harbour porpoises 31 proportion of oiled common guillemots 32 concentrations of mercury and organohalogens in seabird eggs 33 plastic particles in the stomachs of fulmars 34 Local sand eel availability to black-legged kittiwakes 35 seabird population trends 41 proportion of large fish in fish communities 51 imposex in female dog whelks 52 Changes in zoobenthos in relation to eutrophication 71 threatened andor declining species 81 threatened andor declining habitats 9 eutrophication

Note Where an ldquoXrdquo is indicated the EcoQO can contribute to a Descriptor of the Commission Decision When there is a specific relationship then the criterion of the descriptor is indicated

57 EcoQO proportion of oiled common guillemots primarily refers to smaller operational oil spills and less to lsquosignificant pollution eventsrsquo (criterion 822)



Preliminary analysis by OSPARrsquos working group on marine protected areas species and habitats MASH 2006) and Biodiversity Committee (BDC 2007) came to the following conclusions on the use of the North Sea EcoQOs in other OSPAR regions and the development of other systems of EcoQOs

a several of the EcoQOs developed for the North Sea do not apply to other regions

b the threats for some of the North Sea EcoQOs are not relevant to all the regions

c for some EcoQOs there may be a need to use different species as comparable indicators for different regions

d during the identification and selection of EcoQOs applicable to areas beyond the North Sea there was a need to consider in particular

i the selection of those EcoQOs that might be applicable across the whole OSPAR maritime area

ii the selection of those EcoQOs which may help EU Contracting Parties in fulfilling the requirements that may derive from the MSFD

iii the costs and benefits of EcoQOs

124

84 Pressure definitions CfSection 34 Approaches to setting targets for pressures

Source Inter-MSFD 2004 - This is an amended version of the document submitted to both EIHA and ICG-COBAM based on comments received from the Netherlands Spain Germany France ICG-COBAM and the UK Given the range of responses not all suggested revisions have been applied verbatim however it is believed that the spirit and intention of all the recommendations from Contracting Parties listed above have been included

Pressure theme Pressures Code Pressure Descriptor MSFD Annex III Table 2

Hydrological changes (inshorelocal)

Temperature changes - local

H1

Events or activities increasing or decreasing local water temperature This is most likely from thermal discharges eg the release of cooling waters from power stations This could also relate to temperature changes in the vicinity of operational sub sea power cables This pressure only applies within the thermal plume generated by the pressure source It excludes temperature changes from global warming which will be at a regional scale (and as such are addressed under the climate change pressures)

Significant changes in thermal regime (eg by outfalls from power stations)


Salinity changes - local

H2

Events or activities increasing or decreasing local salinity This relates to anthropogenic sourcescauses that have the potential to be controlled eg freshwater discharges from pipelines that reduce salinity or brine discharges from salt caverns washings that may increase salinity This could also include hydromorphological modification eg capital navigation dredging if this alters the halocline or erection of barrages or weirs that alter freshwaterseawater flowexchange rates The pressure may be temporally and spatially delineated derived from the causal eventactivity and local environment

Significant changes in salinity regime (eg by constructions impeding water movements water abstraction)


Water flow (tidal current) changes ndash local including sediment transport considerations

[possibly split water flow amp sediment transport ie separate into lsquoHydrologicalrsquo amp lsquoPhysicalrsquo]

H3

Changes in water movement associated with tidal streams (the rise and fall of the tide riverine flows) prevailing winds and ocean currents The pressure is therefore associated with activities that have the potential to modify hydrological energy flows eg Tidal energy generation devices remove (convert) energy and such pressures could be manifested leeward of the device capital dredging may deepen and widen a channel and therefore decrease the water flow canalisation ampor structures may alter flow speed and direction managed realignment (eg Wallasea England) The pressure will be spatially delineated The pressure extremes are a shift from a high to a low energy environment (or vice versa) The biota associated with these extremes will be markedly different as will the substrate sediment supplytransport and associated seabed elevation changes The potential exists for profound changes (eg coastal

X



erosiondeposition) to occur at long distances from the construction itself if an important sediment transport pathway was disrupted As such these pressures could have multiple and complex impacts associated with them


Emergence regime changes ndash local including tidal level change considerations

[possibly split emergence regime amp tidal level changes]

H4

Changes in water levels reducing the intertidal zone (and the associateddependant habitats) The pressure relates to changes in both the spatial area and duration that intertidal species are immersed and exposed during tidal cycles (the percentage of immersion is dependant on the position or height on the shore relative to the tide) The spatial and temporal extent of the pressure will be dependant on the causal activities but can be delineated This relates to anthropogenic causes that may directly influence the temporal and spatial extent of tidal immersion eg upstream and downstream of a tidal barrage the emergence would be respectively reduced and increased beach re-profiling could change gradients and therefore exposure times capital dredging may change the natural tidal range managed realignment saltmarsh creation Such alteration may be of importance in estuaries because of their influence on tidal flushing and potential wave propagation Changes in tidal flushing can change the sediment dynamics and may lead to changing patterns of deposition and erosion Changes in tidal levels will only affect the emergence regime in areas that are inundated for only part of the time The effects that tidal level changes may have on sediment transport are not restricted to these areas so a very large construction could significantly affect the tidal level at a deep site without changing the emergence regime Such a change could still have a serious impact This excludes pressure from sea level rise which is considered under the climate change pressures

X


Wave exposure changes - local

H5

Local changes in wave length height and frequency Exposure on an open shore is dependant upon the distance of open seawater over which wind may blow to generate waves (the fetch) and the strength and incidence of winds Anthropogenic sources of this pressure include artificial reefs breakwaters barrages wrecks that can directly influence wave action or activities that may locally affect the incidence of winds eg a dense network of wind turbines may have the potential to influence wave exposure depending upon their location relative to the coastline

X

Pollution and other chemical changes

Transition elements amp organo-metal (eg TBT) contamination

P1

The increase in transition elements levels compared with background concentrations due to their input from landriverine sources by air or directly at sea For marine sediments the main elements of concern are Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Mercury Nickel Lead and Zinc Organo-metallic compounds such as the butyl tins (Tri butyl tin and its derivatives) can be highly

Introduction of non-synthetic substances and compounds (eg heavy metals hydro-carbons resulting for example

126

Includes those priority substances listed in Annex II of Directive 2008105EC

persistent and chronic exposure to low levels has adverse biological effects eg Imposex in molluscs

from pollution by ships and oil gas and mineral exploration atmospheric deposition riverine inputs)


Hydrocarbon amp PAH contamination Includes those priority substances listed in Annex II of Directive 2008105EC

P2

Increases in the levels of these compounds compared with background concentrations Naturally occurring compounds complex mixtures of two basic molecular structures

- straight chained aliphatic hydrocarbons (relatively low toxicity and susceptible to degradation)

- multiple ringed aromatic hydrocarbons (higher toxicity and more resistant to degradation)

These fall into three categories based on source (includes both aliphatics and polyaromatic hydrocarbons)

- petroleum hydrocarbons (from natural seeps oil spills and surface water run-off)

- pyrogenic hydrocarbons (from combustion of coal woods and petroleum)

- biogenic hydrocarbons (from plants amp animals)

Ecological consequences include tainting some are acutely toxic carcinomas growth defects

Introduction of non-synthetic substances and compounds (eg heavy metals hydro-carbons resulting for example from pollution by ships and oil gas and mineral exploration atmospheric deposition riverine inputs)


Synthetic compound contamination (incl pesticides antifoulants pharmaceuticals) Includes those priority substances listed in Annex II of Directive 2008105EC

P3

Increases in the levels of these compounds compared with background concentrations Synthesised from a variety of industrial processes and commercial applications Chlorinated compounds include polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) dichlor-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) amp 2378-tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2378-TCDD) are persistent and often very toxic Pesticides vary greatly in structure composition environmental persistence and toxicity to non-target organisms Includes insecticides herbicides rodenticides amp fungicides Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products originate from veterinary and human applications compiling a variety of products including Over the counter medications fungicides chemotherapy drugs and animal therapeutics such as growth hormones Due to their biologically active nature high levels of consumption known combined effects and their detection in most aquatic environments they have become an emerging concern Ecological consequences include physiological changes (eg growth defects carcinomas)

Introduction of synthetic compounds (eg priority substances under Directive 200060EC which are relevant to the marine environment such as pesticides anti-foulants pharmaceuticals resulting for example from losses from diffuse sources pollution by ships atmospheric deposition and biologically active substances)




Introduction of other substances (solid liquid or gas)

P4

The systematic or intentional release of liquids gases hellip (from MSFD Annex III Table 2) is being considered eg in relation to produced water from the oil industry It should therefore be considered in parallel with P1 P2 and P3

Introduction of other substances whether solid liquid or gas in marine waters resulting from their systematic andor international release into the marine environment as permitted in accordance with other Community legislation andor international conventions


Radionuclide contamination

P5

Introduction of radionuclide material raising levels above background concentrations Such materials can come from nuclear installation discharges and from land or sea-based operations (eg oil platforms medical sources) The disposal of radioactive material at sea is prohibited unless it fulfils exemption criteria developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) namely that both the following radiological criteria are satisfied (i) the effective dose expected to be incurred by any member of the public or ships crew is 10 μSv or less in a year (ii) the collective effective dose to the public or ships crew is not more than 1 man Sv per annum then the material is deemed to contain de minimis levels of radioactivity and may be disposed at sea pursuant to it fulfilling all the other provisions under the Convention The individual dose criteria are placed in perspective (ie very low) given that the average background dose to the UK population is ~2700 μSva Ports and coastal sediments can be affected by the authorised discharge of both current and historical low-level radioactive wastes from coastal nuclear establishments

Introduction of radio-nuclides


Nutrient enrichment

P6

Increased levels of the elements nitrogen phosphorus silicon (and iron) in the marine environment compared to background concentrations Nutrients can enter marine waters by natural processes (eg decomposition of detritus riverine direct and atmospheric inputs) or anthropogenic sources (eg waste water runoff terrestrialagricultural runoff sewage discharges aquaculture atmospheric deposition) Nutrients can also enter marine regions from lsquoupstreamrsquo locations eg via tidal currents to induce enrichment in the receiving area Nutrient enrichment may lead to eutrophication (see also organic enrichment) Adverse environmental effects include deoxygenation algal blooms changes in community structure of benthos and macrophytes

Inputs of fertilisers and other nitrogen - and phosphorous-rich substances (eg from point and diffuse sources including agriculture aquaculture atmospheric deposition)

128


Organic enrichment

P7

Resulting from the degraded remains of dead biota amp microbiota (land amp sea) faecal matter from marine animals flocculated colloidal organic matter and the degraded remains of sewage material domestic wastes industrial wastes etc Organic matter can enter marine waters from sewage discharges aquaculture or terrestrialagricultural runoff Black carbon comes from the products of incomplete combustion (PIC) of fossil fuels and vegetation Organic enrichment may lead to eutrophication (see also nutrient enrichment) Adverse environmental effects include deoxygenation algal blooms changes in community structure of benthos and macrophytes

Inputs of organic matter (eg sewers mariculture riverine inputs)


Deoxygenation P8

Any deoxygenation that is not directly associated with nutrient or organic enrichment The lowering temporarily or more permanently of oxygen levels in the water or substrate due to anthropogenic causes (some areas may naturally be deoxygenated due to stagnation of water masses eg inner basins of fjords) This is typically associated with nutrient and organic enrichment but it can also derive from the release of ballast water or other stagnant waters (where organic or nutrient enrichment may be absent) Ballast waters may be deliberately deoxygenated via treatment with inert gases to kill non-indigenous species

X

Physical loss (Permanent Change)

Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat)

L1

The permanent loss of marine habitats Associated activities are land claim new coastal defences that encroach on and move the Mean High Water Springs mark seawards the footprint of a wind turbine on the seabed dredging if it alters the position of the halocline This excludes changes from one marine habitat type to another marine habitat type

Sealing (eg by permanent constructions)


Physical change (to another seabed type)

L2

The permanent change of one marine habitat type to another marine habitat type through the change in substatum including to artificial (eg concrete) This therefore involves the permanent loss of one marine habitat type but has an equal creation of a different marine habitat type Associated activities include the installation of infrastructure (eg surface of platforms or wind farm foundations marinas coastal defences pipelines and cables) the placement of scour protection where soft sediment habitats are replaced by hardcoarse substrate habitats removal of coarse substrate (marine mineral extraction) in those instances where surficial finer sediments are lost capital dredging where the residual sedimentary habitat differs structurally from the pre-dredge state creation of artificial reefs mariculture ie mussel beds Protection of pipes and cables using rock dumping and mattressing techniques Placement of cuttings piles from oil amp gas activities could fit this pressure type however there may be an additional pressures eg pollution and other chemical changes theme

Smothering (eg by man made structures disposal of dredge spoil)



This pressure excludes navigation dredging where the depth of sediment is changes locally but the sediment typology is not changed

Physical damage (Reversible Change)

Habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction)

D1

Unlike the physical change pressure type where there is a permanent change in sea bed type (eg sand to gravel sediment to a hard artificial substrate) the habitat structure change pressure type relates to temporary andor reversible change eg from marine mineral extraction where a proportion of seabed sands or gravels are removed but a residual layer of seabed is similar to the pre-dredge structure and as such biological communities could re-colonise navigation dredging to maintain channels where the silts or sands removed are replaced by non-anthropogenic mechanisms so the sediment typology is not changed

Selective extraction (eg by exploration and exploitation of living and non-living resources on seabed and subsoil)


Penetration andor disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed including abrasion

D2 The disturbance of sediments where there is limited or no loss of substrate from the system This pressure is associated with activities such as anchoring taking of sedimentgeological cores cone penetration tests cable burial (ploughing or jetting) propeller wash from vessels certain fishing activities eg scallop dredging beam trawling Agitation dredging where sediments are deliberately disturbed by and by gravity amp hydraulic dredging where sediments are deliberately disturbed and moved by currents could also be associated with this pressure type Compression of sediments eg from the legs of a jack-up barge could also fit into this pressure type Abrasion relates to the damage of the sea bed surface layers (typically up to 50cm depth) Activities associated with abrasion can cover relatively large spatial areas and include fishing with towed demersal trawls (fish amp shellfish) bio-prospecting such as harvesting of biogenic features such as maerl beds where after extraction conditions for recolonisation remain suitable or relatively localised activities including seaweed harvesting recreation potting aquaculture Change from gravel to silt substrate would adversely affect herring spawning grounds

Abrasion (eg impact on the seabed of commercial fishing boating anhoring)


Changes in suspended solids (water clarity)

D3

Changes in water clarity from sediment amp organic particulate matter concentrations It is related to activities disturbing sediment andor organic particulate matter and mobilising it into the water column Could be natural land run-off and riverine discharges or from anthropogenic activities such as all forms of dredging disposal at sea cable and pipeline burial secondary effects of construction works eg breakwaters Particle size hydrological energy (current speed amp direction) and tidal excursion are all influencing factors on the spatial extent and temporal duration This pressure also relates to changes in turbidity from suspended solids of organic origin (as such it excludes sediments - see the changes in suspended sediment pressure type) Salinity turbulence

X

130

pH and temperature may result in flocculation of suspended organic matter Anthropogenic sources mostly short lived and over relatively small spatial extents


Siltation rate changes including smothering (depth of vertical sediment overburden)

D4

When the natural rates of siltation are altered (increased or decreased) Siltation (or sedimentation) is the settling out of siltsediments suspended in the water column Activities associated with this pressure type include mariculture land claim navigation dredging disposal at sea marine mineral extraction cable and pipeline laying and various construction activities It can result in short lived sediment concentration gradients and the accumulation of sediments on the sea-floor This accumulation of sediments is synonymous with light smothering which relates to the depth of vertical overburden

ldquoLightrdquo smothering relates to the deposition of layers of sediment on the seabed It is associated with activities such as sea disposal of dredged materials where sediments are deliberately deposited on the sea bed For ldquolightrdquo smothering most benthic biota may be able to adapt ie vertically migrate through the deposited sediment

ldquoHeavyrdquo smothering also relates to the deposition of layers of sediment on the seabed but is associated with activities such as sea disposal of dredged materials where sediments are deliberately deposited on the sea bed This accumulation of sediments relates to the depth of vertical overburden where the sediment type of the existing and deposited sediment has similar physical characteristics because although most species of marine biota are unable to adapt eg sessile organisms unable to make their way to the surface a similar biota could with time re-establish If the sediments were physically different this would fall under L2

Eleftheriou and McIntyre 2005 describe that the majority of animals will inhabit the top 5-10 cm in open waters and the top 15 cm in intertidal areas The depth of sediment overburden that benthic biota can tolerate is both trophic group and particle sizesediment type dependant (Bolam 2010) Recovery from burial can occur from

- planktonic recruitment of larvae

- lateral migration of juvenilesadults

- vertical migration

(see Chandrasekara and Frid 1998 Bolam et al 2003 Bolam amp Whomersley 2005) Spatial scale timing rate and depth of placement all contribute the

Changes in siltation (eg by outfalls increased run-off dredgingdisposal or dredge spoil)



relative importance of these three recovery mechanisms (Bolam et al 2006)

As such the terms ldquolightrdquo and ldquoheavyrdquo smothering are relative and therefore difficult to define in general terms Bolam 2010 cites various examples

- H ulvae maximum overburden 5 cm (Chandrasekara amp Frid 1998)

- H ulvae maximum overburden 20 cm mud or 9 cm sand (Bijerk 1988)

- S shrubsolii maximum overburden 6 cm (Saila et al 1972 cited by Hall 1994)

- N succinea maximum overburden 90 cm (Maurer et al 1982)

- gastropod molluscs maximum overburden 15 cm (Roberts et al 1998)

Bolam 2010 also reported when organic content was low

- H ulvae maximum overburden 16 cm

- T benedii maximum overburden 6 cm

- S shrubsolii maximum overburden lt6 cm

- Tharyx spA maximum overburden lt6 cm

Other physical pressures Litter O1

Marine litter is any manufactured or processed solid material from anthropogenic activities discarded disposed or abandoned (excluding legitimate disposal) once it enters the marine and coastal environment including plastics metals timber rope fishing gear etc and their degraded components eg microplastic particles Ecological effects can be physical (smothering) biological (ingestion including uptake of microplastics entangling physical damage accumulation of chemicals) andor chemical (leaching contamination)

Marine litter

Other physical pressures

Electromagnetic changes

O2

Localised electric and magnetic fields associated with operational power cables and telecommunication cables (if equipped with power relays) Such cables may generate electric and magnetic fields that could alter behaviour and migration patterns of sensitive species (eg sharks and rays)

X


Underwater noise changes

O3

Increases over and above background noise levels (consisting of environmental noise (ambient) and incidental man-madeanthropogenic noise (apparent)) at a particular location Species known to be affected are marine mammals and fish The theoretical zones of noise influence (Richardson et al 1995) are temporary or permanent hearing loss discomfort amp injury response masking and detection In extreme cases noise pressures may lead to death The physical or behavioural effects are dependant on a number of variables including the sound pressure loudness sound exposure level and frequency High amplitude

Underwater noise (eg from shipping underwater acoustic equipment)

132

low and mid-frequency impulsive sounds and low frequency continuous sound are of greatest concern for effects on marine mammals and fish Some species may be responsive to the associated particle motion rather than the usual concept of noise Noise propagation can be over large distances (tens of kilometres) but transmission losses can be attributable to factors such as water depth and sea bed topography Noise levels associated with construction activities such as pile-driving are typically significantly greater than operational phases (ie shipping operation of a wind farm)

Other physical pressures Introduction of light O4

Direct inputs of light from anthropogenic activities ie lighting on structures during construction or operation to allow 24 hour working new tourist facilities eg promenade or pier lighting lighting on oil amp gas facilities etc Ecological effects may be the diversion of bird species from migration routes if they are disorientated by or attracted to the lights It is also possible that continuous lighting may lead to increased algal growth

X


Barrier to species movement

O5

The physical obstruction of species movements and including local movements (within amp between roosting breeding feeding areas) and regionalglobal migrations (eg birds eels salmon whales) Both include up river movements (where tidal barrages amp devices or dams could obstruct movements) or movements across open waters (offshore wind farm wave or tidal device arrays mariculture infrastructure or fixed fishing gears) Species affected are mostly birds fish mammals

X


Death or injury by collision

O6

Injury or mortality from collisions of biota with both static ampor moving structures Examples include Collision with rigs (eg birds) or screens in intake pipes (eg fish at power stations) (static) or collisions with wind turbine blades fish amp mammal collisions with tidal devices and shipping (moving) Activities increasing number of vessels transiting areas eg new port development or construction works will influence the scale and intensity of this pressure

X

Biological pressures Visual disturbance B1

The disturbance of biota by anthropogenic activities eg increased vessel movements such as during construction phases for new infrastructure (bridges cranes port buildings etc) increased personnel movements increased tourism increased vehicular movements on shore etc disturbing bird roosting areas seal haul out areas etc

X


Genetic modification amp translocation of

B2

Genetic modification can be either deliberate (eg introduction of farmed individuals to the wild GM food production) or a by-product of other activities (eg mutations associated with radionuclide contamination) Former related to escapees or deliberate releases eg cultivated species such as farmed salmon

X



indigenous species oysters scallops if GM practices employed Scale of pressure compounded if GM species captured and translocated in ballast water Mutated organisms from the latter could be transferred on ships hulls in ballast water with imports for aquaculture aquaria live bait species traded as live seafood or natural migration

Movement of native species to new regions can also introduce different genetic stock


Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species

B3

The direct or indirect introduction of non-indigenous species eg chinese mitten crabs slipper limpets Pacific oyster and their subsequent spreading and out-competing of native species Ballast water hull fouling stepping stone effects (eg offshore wind farms) may facilitate the spread of such species This pressure could be associated with aquaculture mussel or shellfishery activities due to imported seed stock imported or from accidental releases

Introduction of non-indigenous species and translocations


Introduction of microbial pathogens

B4

Untreated or insufficiently treated effluent discharges amp run-off from terrestrial sources amp vessels It may also be a consequence of ballast water releases In mussel or shellfisheries where seed stock are imported infected seed could be introduced or it could be from accidental releases of effluvia Escapees eg farmed salmon could be infected and spread pathogens in the indigenous populations Aquaculture could release contaminated faecal matter from which pathogens could enter the food chain



Removal of target species

B5

The commercial exploitation of fish amp shellfish stocks including smaller scale harvesting angling and scientific sampling The physical effects of fishing gear on sea bed communities are addressed by the abrasion pressure type D2 so B5 addresses the direct removal harvesting of biota Ecological consequences include the sustainability of stocks impacting energy flows through food webs and the size and age composition within fish stocks

Selective extraction of species hellip (eg by commercial and recreational fishing)



B6

Bycatch associated with all fishing activities The physical effects of fishing gear on sea bed communities are addressed by the abrasion pressure type (D2) so B6 addresses the direct removal of individuals associated with fishing harvesting Ecological consequences include food web dependencies population dynamics of fish marine mammals turtles and sea birds (including survival threats in extreme cases eg Harbour Porpoise in Central and Eastern Baltic)

Selective extraction of species including incidental non-target catches (eg by commercial and recreational fishing)

134

85 Consideration of assessment scale specific to each biodiversity Descriptor cf 35 Assessment scales

851 Biodiversity and scale

The ICESJRC Task Group 1 report recommends that assessments should be carried out at the scale of lsquoecological assessment areasrsquo that reflect both the ecological scales exhibited by the biodiversity components and the scales at which management measures will be effective The assessment areas should be nested within a sub-region to enable aggregation at the sub-regional and if necessary regional scales The number of assessment areas in a region or sub-region should be kept to a minimum so as to not overly complicate the assessment process Also if assessment areas are small there is a risk that there is insufficient spatial resolution in the data to produce accurate assessments In such circumstances expanding monitoring to increase resolution may be prohibitively expensive

There are significant gaps in knowledge for many biodiversity components for both spatial and temporal scales especially for the deep sea Although a ldquotop-downrdquo approach (that is the subdivision of a sub-region to define a relevant assessment unit) is conceptually more comfortable than a bottom-up approach (using available and standardized datasets to define relevant assessment areas and aggregating to broader scales) the bottom-up approach has advantages in practical application Within the MSFD assessment and monitoring cycles it should be possible to link these two approaches and refine assessment areas and scales However in the mean time whilst there is still a gap in knowledge a pragmatic approach could be to prioritise data acquisition for monitoring in high-pressure areas and simultanesously in reference areas

852 Non-indigenous species and scale

The ICESJRC Task Group 2 report (Olenin et al 2010)58 proposes the assessment of impacts from invasive non-indigenous species (NIS) should begin at the local scale such as ldquohot-spotsrdquo and ldquostepping stone areasrdquo for introductions of non-indigenous species (eg marinas port areas aquaculture installations offshore structures) or in areas of special interest (eg marine reserves Natura 2000 sites lagoons) Depending on the taxonomicfunctional group an NIS belongs to the assessment can involve areas from confined benthic habitats to the entire water column Local scale assessments can be further integrated into the next spatial level evaluations at a sub-regional (eg Gulf of Finland in the Baltic or Adriatic Sea in the Mediterranean) or a regional sea level

The attributes of biological invasions are occuring at different temporal scales (eg daysweeks for phytoplankton and yearsdecades for benthic communities and fish) The temporal scales addressed should vary depending on the taxonomicfunctional group of an invasive NIS

58 S Olenin F Alemany A C Cardoso S Gollasch P Goulletquer M Lehtiniemi T McCollin D Minchin L Miossec A Occhipinti Ambrogi H Ojaveer K Rose Jensen M Stankiewicz I Wallentinus amp B Aleksandrov (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 2 Report Non-Indigenous Species Ed H Piha JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR 24342 EN - 2010



853 Food webs and scale

The ICESJRC Task Group 4 proposes that attributes of food webs can in principle be applied at any spatial or temporal scale limited by practicality The fundamental time scale over which ecosystem assessments might be required is annual The temporal scale necessary to assess growth mortality and feeding fluxes between food web components should be annual to integrate over seasonal variability at the lowest trophic levels More frequent assessments for example those that could be undertaken monthly are operationally difficult to undertake and maintain and their interpretation becomes complicated by seasonal dynamics For the higher trophic levels some smoothing of annual rates may be required to eliminate inter-annual variability For longer-lived species such as piscivorous fish mammals and birds assessments on an annual basis may be too frequent since variability at this scale becomes more influenced by unexplained external processes such as recruitment variability and less by internal population processes

Similar issues apply to considerations of appropriate spatial scales at small spatial scales such as parts of a MSFD Sub-Region immigration and emigration by advection and migrations become important components of change For large long-lived taxa spatial scales which integrate over migration ranges may be appropriate but these scales may span fundamentally different habitats and communities for lower trophic levels for example plankton or benthos to the point that a synthesis at this scale becomes questionable Ultimately it seems likely that the appropriate spatial scale at which to assess food webs will be set by the purpose for which the assessment is required rather than any ecological considerations Other practical considerations such as the availability and spatial extent of monitoring data for key taxa are also likely to influence the scale at which assessments are made (Rogers et al 2010)59

854 Sea-floor integrity and scale

Scale for assessing environmental status of the sea-floor is particularly challenging and set out in the ICESJRC Task Group 6 report for Descriptor 6 (Rice et al 2010)60 There are three reasons for such a challenge

i the wide range of human activities causing pressures that may degrade the status of the sea-floor operate at different but always patchy spatial scales

ii the patchiness of the human activities causing the pressures also means that the scales of initial impacts of those activities are usually also local Not only are the activities and their impacts patchy but all monitoring of the sea-floor is also patchy with emphasis being put on looking at temporal changes rather than changes in geographic distribution

iii there are many differences between coastal and deeper-water benthic communities Some of these differences are simply consequences of history because of proximity and greater ease of sampling much more is known of the coastal and nearshore sea-floor habitats and communities than is known of offshore and deep-sea habitats and communities Some are

59 S Rogers M Casini P Cury M Heath X Irigoien H Kuosa M Scheidat H Skov K Stergiou V Trenkel J Wikner amp O

Yunev (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 4 Report Food Webs Ed H Piha JRC Scientific and Technical

Reports EUR 24343 EN - 2010 60 J Rice C Arvanitidis A Borja C Frid J Hiddink J Krause P Lorance SAacute Ragnarsson M Skoumlld and B Trabucco (2010)

Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 6 Report Sea-floor Integrity Ed H Piha JRC Scientific and Technical Reports

EUR 24334 EN-2010

136

ecological although knowledge is less complete offshore and in the deep-sea many studies suggest that the dominant space and time scales are both greater in these ecosystems

The ICESJRC Task Group 6 report provides a practical way forward It is recommended to apply a risk-based approach either starting from the threats posed by human activities or from key ecosystem components likely to be impacted

The first approach is based upon spatial distribution of human activities in particular those that most likely cause the largest impacts on the sea-floor Monitoring should be stratified along the known gradients of occurrence of pressures resulting from these activities Assessments should start in the areas of highest risk and if impacts do not exceed targets for stateimpact indicators it can be assumed that the activities are overall sustainable Alternatively if impacts do exceed targets for GES then assessments would be conducted for lower risk areas to determine how far along the gradient impacts are considered unsustainable

The second approach builds upon sensitivity maps ie vulnerability to human pressures of various features of benthic habitats that are considered key to ecological functioning High vulnerabilty combined with significant levels of threat by human activities would indicate high-risk areas Monitoring and assessment would start in those areas and proceed to progressively lower-risk areas until the quality status is within targets for GES

At a higher geographic scale good environmental status could be related to the proportion of the area where key features of benthic habitats are assessed as at low risk or if impacts of human activities in high-risk areas could be managed or mitigated (eg moved to less ecologically important areas)

86 Biodiversity components species and habitat lists

861 Developing lists of common habitats and species across the OSPA Region and Sub-regions

The following lists of species and habitats (embedded files) contain the latest iteration of lists of predominant habitat types and functional groups of species which are intended to be used for assessment across each sub-region (cf 862)

The lists contain both lsquolistedrsquo and lsquoadditionalrsquo species and habitats from the following sources

a Listed species and habitats from Community legislation and international agreements each assigned as appropriate to the relevant functional group or predominant habitat type

b Additional species being considered within some sub-regions for potential use to represent the broader functional group in which they occur This selection is guided by the criteria below and is an ongoing process

The lists are intended as a common starting point for defining and selecting of indicators for GES These lists aim to serve Member States in the selection of species and habitats that fulfil their assessment needs Coordination of the selection process within and across sub-regions will facilitate effective and coordinated monitoring among neighbouring Member States and within each sub-region

The species lists contain those species already listed in other reporting requirements and a preliminary proposal of predominantcommon species developed by some Contracting Parties for Regions IV and V They also include a subset of more common or widespread species representative for of the condition of the wider community of the relevant ecosystem component where this is not achieved using lsquolisted speciesrsquo alone These lists are not definitive or exhaustive and will be further developed by ICG-COBAM



However the attached version can already be regarded as guidance for species assessments under MSFD

The following guidance on the selection criteria for species within each functional group (from ICG-COBAM(1) 1141) provides a clear view on the operability (practicability) and effectiveness of indicators based on the suggested species The selection of species to be assessed under MSFD in the OSPAR maritime area (MSFD sub-region b) should take into consideration

a their abundance and distribution (ie also naturally predominant species as well as species that are predominant as an effect of human activities should be included)

b their sensitivity towards specific human activities

c their suitability for the respective indicators and descriptors of the Commission Decision

d the practicability (including cost-effectiveness) of monitoring them

e their inclusion in existing monitoring programmes and time-series data

f their association with specific habitats

862 Draft lists of predominant habitats and species

Habitats list

Habitat components 150311xls

Draft Species list (under development by region as at December 2011)

OSPAR Region II

2011-01-12_MSFD species_v5_North Sea

OSPAR Region III

MSFD species_Celtic Seasxls

OSPAR Region IV and V

0504_MSFD_D1_Ospar_LMSpecies_ES_FR_

863 Recommendations for futher development and uses of the species lists

General

a All sub-regions including the North Sea should include additional species as well as listed species This action would ensure consistency with the other sub-regions and would also follow the advice from within the regional co-ordination process in the NE Atlantic

b The selection of species within each sub-region under each component needs to be aligned with the common set of indicators being proposed in Tables 41 (Mammals amp Reptiles) 42 (Fish) and 43 (Birds) of the OSPAR MSFD Biodiversity Manual It would be useful to compile a candidate list of species for each common indicator Selection could be based on the criteria listed below or on alternative or additional criteria specific to a particular component (eg advice

ReadMe

Habitat components for GES assessment An assessment of the status of marine habitats and species will be required for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) as part of the determination of whether Good Environmental Status (GES) is being achieved or maintained The European Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on GES requires that a set of habitat types be drawn up for each region sub-region or subdivision taking into account the habitats contained in Table 1 of Annex III of the Directive Table 1 of Annex III sets out three main categories lsquopredominant habitat typesrsquo the lsquospecial habitat types (listed under Community legislation and international agreements) and habitats that lsquomerit a particular referencersquo due to their specific characteristics location or strategic importance ICG-COBAM has developed an indicative list of habitat types for the NE Atlantic under these three categories (Table X) This list is a starting point for the assessment of GES for Descriptor 1 Descriptor 6 and Descriptor 4 (where relevant) 1 lsquoPredominant seabed and water column habitat type(s)rsquo Table X provides a provisional set of predominant habitat types (blue rows) for the seabed water column and sea-ice (based on the TG1 types Cochrane et al 2010) which will require direct assessment under the Directive Substrate type and biological depth zone have been used as the main parameters to define the habitats These parameters provide the main structure for the upper hierarchical levels of the EUNIS marine habitat classification and provide an ecologically relevant and readily understandable division of the seabed at a resolution suitable for application in the MSFD The substrate classes follow the five main classes of EUNIS and are physically defined but biologically relevant The zones are the main ecological zones of the EUNIS classification A number of physical parameters (emersion light penetration temperature and salinity stability) contribute to determining these zones such that the precise depth varies from location to location (eg light penetration is much greater in the west of Ireland compared to the more turbid southern North Sea) The lsquoshallowrsquo sublittoral refers to the infralittoral and circalittoral zones whilst the lsquoshelfrsquo refers to the deep circalittoral zone (or circalittoral du large in the French classification system) The table also includes an additional row for lsquowidespread habitatsrsquo (yellow rows) A list of widespread habitats is yet to be agreed across Contracting Parties but this category is intended to include the most common EUNIS habitats nested within the lsquoPredominant habitat typesrsquo (1) as a basis for the assessment of the predominant habitats It is recognised that additional lsquowidespread habitatsrsquo will not be identified for every predominant habitat type - in some cases there is no finer scale spatial data than at the predominant habitat level (eg lsquoShelf sublittoral sandrsquo in the North Sea) Moreover for some predominant habitat types their associated special habitats are very broadly defined (for example Annex I lsquoReefsrsquo under Littoral rock and biogenic reef) and could therefore be considered both lsquowidespreadrsquo as well as lsquospecialrsquo The status of the predominant habitat types can be derived from an aggregation of the direct assessments of special and of widespread habitat types nested within them (and where applicable the habitats which lsquomerit a particular referencersquo) 2 lsquoSpecial habitat typesrsquo Table X shows the listed habitats and benthic species from the Habitats Directive and OSPAR Convention that are associated with each predominant habitat (light brown rows) These habitats will be subject to direct assessment under the MSFD but can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat types in which they fall 3 Habitats which lsquomerit a particular referencersquo Table X includes a row for habitats lsquowhich by virtue of their characteristics location or strategic importance merit a particular reference This may include areas subject to intense or specific pressures or areas which merit a specific protection regimersquo (green rows) This habitat category is included under each relevant predominant habitat type Contracting Parties have yet to develop an agreed list of these habitats which lsquomerit a particular referencersquo However it is acknowledged that these habitats where identified will require a direct status assessment in line with Table 1 of Annex III as well as potentially contributing to the assessment of the predominant habitat types in which they are nested Table X further explanation Worksheet 1 shows how habitats 1) 2) and 3) are linked to the EUNIS habitat classes as well as the relationships between the predominant habitat types (1) the listedspecial habitat types (2) the habitats that lsquomerit a particular referencersquo (3) The table also shows the regions (~MSFD subregions) in which each habitat occurs (green=pretty likelycertain =possible ndash Contracting Parties to confirm)-The relationship between predominant types (1) and speciallisted types (2) is not always straightforward (ie the latter do not always sit neatly within the former) Quite a few speciallisted types occur in more than one predominant type ndash this is largely because the listedspecial types are rather broadlyloosely defined occurrence in more than one predominant habitat usually implies that their associated communities differ significantly For example the Habitats Directive lsquoReefsrsquo type is well known for being so broad in definition and hence is spread across a number of predominant types For others (eg Zostera seagrass beds) there are clearly different EUNIS community types (littoral=Z noltii sublittoral=Z marina) For others (eg coral gardens) the definition is very broad (and OSPAR recognise it needs refinement)-Some speciallisted types (eg submarine structures hydrothermal vents) do not fit well into the rocksediment categorisation as they are lsquoindependentrsquo of these substrate classes (and hence classed separately in EUNIS) They have therefore been put into an lsquootherrsquo category along with the topographic physiographic types (which are treated as lsquolandscape typesrsquo by TG1)-The somewhat lsquomessyrsquo relationship between the speciallisted types and predominant types is typical due to the origins of the speciallisted types and often poor definition at the time of listing This is not considered to make the predominant types any less appropriate for application in MSFD assessments -It is envisaged that for certain speciallisted types it may be desirable to subdivide their assessment (because they are so broadly defined and assessment is less meaningful in relation to management requirements) For instance there is some discussion in Article 17 reporting for the Habitats Directive about the possibility of using sub-types for reefs (in recognition of the extremely broad nature of the habitat) In such a case alignment with MSFD reporting categorising would be wise-The five regions equate broadly to the OSPAR regionsMSFD subregions noting that-There is no Arctic subregion in MSFD although one Member State (UK) has waters in OSPARs Arctic region-There is no Macaronesian region in OSPAR the listing of habitats in the MSFD Macaronesian sub-region refers to habitats that occur in either the Azores Madeira or the Canary Islands even though the waters of the latter two archipelago are not part of the OSPAR maritime area-As there are currently no agreed boundaries for the MSFD subregions the distributions indicated should be considered indicative until such time as the boundaries are agreed and the presence of the habitat in the subregion confirmedThe European Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on GES made clear that the term habitat addresses both the abiotic characteristics and the associated biological community treating both elements together in the sense of the term biotopeNote that it is currently proposed to subdivide sediments only in the shallow and shelf sublittoral zones extension of this approach to the littoral zone may be advisable See for example the EUNIS correlation table at wwwjnccgovukdefaultaspxpage=3365For more information about EUNIS see httpeuniseeaeuropaeu

Sheet1

Annabelle AishPossibly not covered by MSFD as considered transitional waters

Sheet3

barbara
File Attachment

MSFD Species

out of breeding season also offshore pelagic feeder
eunice pinnWhat about the long migrations undertaken by species within a single water body
BfNIt is not to be reported on species of annex VAnnex IV is included in this table

Habitats Directive Annex II+IV

OSPAR List

Birds directive Annex I

ASCOBANS

barbara
File Attachment
2011-01-12_MSFD species_v5_North Sea onlyxls

MSFD Species

ldransfeldthis is now toxonomically described as Dipturus complex for two species which would be D flossada and D intermedia


OSPAR List


ASCOBANS

barbara
File Attachment

listed

not listed

barbara
File Attachment
0504_MSFD_D1_Ospar_LMSpecies_ES_FR_PTxls

138

from ICG-COBAM on whether to include in assessments of GES those listed species that are not selected as part of the common set of indicators (see 312 and 313))

i Particular sensitivity towards specific human pressuresactivities

ii Commonness (global occurrence andor locally abundance)

iii Practicability to monitor the species Inclusion in existing monitoring programmes

iv D4 criterion 1 groups with fast turnover rates that will respond quickly to ecosystem change

v D4 criterion 2 groupsspecies that are targeted by human activities or that are indirectly affected by them (in particular by-catch and discards)

vi D4 criterion 3 groupsspecies at the top of the food web

vii D4 criterion 5 groupsspecies that are tightly linked to specific groupsspecies at another trophic level

Marine Birds

c The selection of marine bird species should be limited to those that occur regularly in the MSFD assessment area A common set of criteria should be developed for selecting species to constitute each indicator (ie lsquoadditional speciesrsquo) as recommended by the bird group at the Amsterdam workshop The criteria identified above could be refined further and applied to all regions For example the UK also used the following criteria to select additional bird species

i State in lifecycle when using MSFD coastal and offshore areas (eg breeding migrating) ndash NB spreadsheets for Bay of Biscay and Macaronesia already contain this info and break it down to occurrence in each constituent country

ii Monitoring season (ie during winter breeding season migration or more)

iii Does monitoring produce representative trends at OSPAR Regional scale

d Waterbird species that predominate in estuaries should not be considered relevant under MSFD

e It is questionable whether lsquocoastal top-predatorsrsquo are an appropriate functional group under MSFD given that these species are reliant on the terrestrial environment and may not be very good indicators of GES in the marine environment

f The definition of lsquolisted speciesrsquo for birds may need reviewing given the following points made in the UK proposals for MSFD targets and indicators (Moffat et al 2011) lsquoThe OSPAR MSFD advice manual on biodiversity recommends lsquolisted speciesrsquo of birds should be those that are included in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive and on the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species The Birds Directive actually applies to all wild migratory bird species and Annex 1 of the Birds Directive lists those species for which nationally important aggregations should be designated as Special Protection Areas as opposed to internationally important aggregations in all other species Hence the Birds Directive is not necessarily a useful reference for identifying species that require special protection and inclusion in assessments of GES under MSFD Furthermore the OSPAR List of threatened andor declining species does not appear to be inclusive of all relevant taxa of marine birds Therefore we recommend that lsquolisted speciesrsquo are also selected from the species that are awarded the highest level of protection under the Action



Plan of AEWA - African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (ie species listed in column A of Table 1 Annex 3 of the Agreement ndash (httpwwwunep-aewaorgdocumentsagreement_textengpdfaewa_agreement_text_2009_2012_table1pdf) AEWA applies to all migratory species of seabird and waterbird except petrels and shearwaters The only UK species of petrel or shearwater that would meet any of the AEWA criteria is Balearic shearwater which is also included in the OSPAR list of threatened and declining speciesrsquo

Fish amp Cephalopods

g Further consideration should be given to the inclusion of Cephalopod species on the North Sea list of lsquoadditional speciesrsquo This recommendation is consistent with the OSPAR Advice Manual lsquowith respect to cephalopods a selection of good indicator species will have to be agreed upon by the various Member States in order for there to be consistency in applicationrsquo

h The approach to selecting additional fish species should be consistent across sub-regions The fish group at the Amsterdam Workshop proposed within each functional group species should be selected according to how sensitive they are The UK proposed at Amsterdam that indicators be composed of the most sensitive species and the most opportunistic In a disturbed ecosystem below GES the fish community would be dominated by opportunistic species with declining or depleted stocks of sensitive species In a less disturbed ecosystem that is at GES or heading towards GES sensitive species would be abundant or increasing in abundance while opportunistic species would be much less abundant or declining The relative abundance of sensitive and opportunistic species is therefore a useful indicator for management when aiming to achieve or maintain GES The sensitivity of different fish species to human pressure has been linked to their life-history characteristics The UK defined sensitive species as those with k-type traits large ultimate body size slow growth rate and large size at maturity Opportunistic species were defined as r-type species which have the opposite traits to sensitive species For example in the Greater North Sea the UK selected 76 species recorded present in at least half of the annual International Bottom Trawl Surveys (IBTS 1983 ndash 2008) and ranked them by their averaged life-history trait (ultimate body length Von Bertalannfy growth parameter and length at first maturity) The 25 lowest ranked species were considered opportunist species (r-type) and the 25 highest ranked species deemed to be sensitive species (k-type) (see Greenstreet et al in prep)

i Listed fish species for which sufficient records exist within monitoring data should also be included in the selection of sensitive and opportunistic species

j For many of the listed fish species in the NE Atlantic monitoring data is poor The catadramousanadramous listed fish species are on the Habitats Directive Annex II and all other listed fish species are on the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species It is likely that assessments under the Habitats Directive will be used for relevant species under MSFD For the OSPAR-listed species member states will require advice from OSPAR on the likely future monitoring of these species in order to judge how they may be included in assessments of GES

Marine Mammals

k There are only two seal species that are relevant for the assessment of GES in the NE Atlantic Atlantic grey seal and harbour seal All other species that occur within the region are occasional visitors or vagrants

140

l The long-list of cetacean species proposed for the North Sea Biscay and Macaronesia need to be reduced to a list of species that occur commonly and are therefore likely to yield data on distribution and abundance that could be used to construct one or more of the common set of indicators Conversely the list of the Celtic seas needs to be expanded to include more cetacean species the UK has identified six species to be potential indicators

Reptiles

m Just one common indicator for reptiles is proposed to date lsquonumbers of individuals within a species being by caughtrsquo with a target of lsquoa decreasing trendrsquo This will be most relevant to Biscay and Macaronesia all five species of sea turtle that occur there should be included in the indicator Sea turtles occur so infrequently in the North Sea and the Celtic Seas that such an indicator will not be relevant there


141

OSPAR Commission Version 31 (January 2012)

87 Synthesis tables to illustrate the most suitable target-setting and baseline-setting methods for each GES indicator or indicator class by species functional group Cf 52 Marine mammals

Table 1 Target-setting and baseline setting methods for Marine Mammals

GES Descriptor Criteria GES Descriptor IndicatorIndicator classes

Proposed Baseline-setting method

Comment on baseline

Proposed Target-setting method

Comment on target

11 Population Distribution


Aii

GES should represent a larger population (based on what we know of historic population sizes) rather than simply maintain current state (cf current FCS approach under Hab Dir)

1

As per FCS under Hab Dir range of a species is stable or increasing and not smaller than the favourable reference range Distributional pattern within range (112)

12 Population size Population abundance (121)

Aii


1

As per FCS under Hab Population of the species above favourable reference population and reproduction mortality and age structure not deviating from normal

NA 3

This is an IWC target and OSPAR EcoQO well as an ASCOBANS target Annual bycatch levels (or any anthropogenic removal) should be reduced to below

142



Comment on baseline


Comment on target

17 of the best population estimate Based on modelling of carrying capacity

C

Seals only based on EcoQO on Pup production in grey seals (as a proxy of population size) and on EcoQO on harbour seal population size Both baselines are a five-year running mean

1 no decline of ge10 from baseline

13 Population Condition

Population demographic characteristics (eg body size or age class structure sex ratio fecundity rates survivalmortality rates) (131)

Aii


1


Population genetic structure (132)


Abundance trends of functionally important selected groupsspecies (431) See Population abundance (121)


143


Cf Section 45 Birds

Table 2 Target-setting and baseline setting methods for Marine Birds for each relevant indicatorindicator class




Comment on target

11 Population Distribution Distributional range (111) Not an important indicator of GES for marine birds but may require limited

attention during assessment Distributional pattern within range (112)

12 Population size Population abundance (121) B)

Based on EcoQO on Seabird population trends (under development)

3

Based on EcoQO on Seabird population trends (under development


Population demographic characteristics (eg body size or age class structure sex ratio fecundity rates) (131)

na

Based on EcoQO kittiwake breeding success (under development)




Performance of key predator species using their production per unit biomass (productivity) (411) na





B)


3


144

Cf 46 Fish and cephalopods

Table 3 Target-setting and baseline setting methods for Fish and Cephalopods for each relevant indicatorindicator class



Comment on baseline

Proposed Target-setting method Comment on target

11 Population distribution


Mixture of approaches)

Approach depends on species In some cases for species listed under the Habitats Directive the year of implementation (1994) is used For commercial species the baseline depends on the past state determined as a sustainable level

2 or 3 where possible Trends based option 1 might be necessary in data poor situations

Distributional pattern within range (112)

Area covered by the species (for sessilebenthic species) (113)

12 population size Population abundance andor biomass as appropriate (121)

Mixture of approaches

For commercial species threshold set as lowest observed biomass using historical dataor modelled level where stock suffers from impaired recruitment

1 or 2

Method depends on data availability for a number of commercial species there are defined reference points for stock assessment purposes that can be used for this purpose For speciesstocks that have no defined reference points a trends-based approach needs to be taken

13 Population condition Population demographic characteristics (eg body size or age class structure sex ratio fecundity rates) (131)

See 42 Set as past reference point when state was considered at

1 or 3 As per safe fish stocks ECoQO North Sea specific


145




Comment on baseline


sustainable levels For other population or other geographic regions absolute targets have not yet been defined Although less meaningful trend-based targets are sometimes the only method available

Population genetic structure (132) 1

Genetic drift (shift in age at maturity) Currently no reference levels have been set

41 Productivity (production per unit biomass) of key species or trophic groups


2

No reference for fecundity levels SSB below a threshold triggers pressure limits In fisheries recruitment is monitored but reference points are set on biomass and fishing pressure to infer on recruitment potential


Large fish by weight (421) B) Baseline set in the past

1 or 2

a and b regional dependent deepsea size does not reflect vulnerability pelagic community contains few species size spectrum of individual species is more

146



Comment on baseline


relevant



1


147

OSPAR Commission V

Executive summary

Purpose and scope of the Advice Manual

Part I Principles

1 Background

11 Purpose and scope of the Advice Manual

12 Policy context





13 Knowledge base for the Advice Manual

14 How to use this document

PART I Principles

2 Introduction

21 What is GES

22 Talking a common language

23 Overview of the biodiversity Descriptors

24 Relationships to other Descriptors

25 Consistency between targets for all Descriptors

26 Elements for determining GES





3 Approaches to determining GES

31 Understanding GES for biodiversity


32 Making use of existing biodiversity targets and indicators






34 Approaches to setting targets for pressures

35 Assessment scales

PART II Application of Principles to Biodiversity

4 Habitats

41 Introduction

411 Seabed habitats















45 Potential common indicators for habitats

5 Species

51 Assessment scales and species



521 Cetaceans

522 Seals

523 Reptiles


53 Birds



54 Fish and cephalopods




6 Descriptor 2 ndash Non indigenous species

61 Introduction

62 Definitions for Descriptor 2

63 Issues with selecting targets




65 Baseline for targets

66 Criteria from the Commission Decision

67 Risk-based approach

68 Target-setting decision tree

69 Potential common indicators for non-indigenous species


71 D1 Biodiversity

72 D2 Non-indigenous species

73 D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

74 D4 Food webs

75 D6 Sea-floor integrity

76 Potential common indicators for food webs

Existing reporting requirements Application of additional species selection criteria Occurencerelevance in OSPAR regions (MSFD subregions)

Functional Groups (Ecotypes) Species (Scientific Name) English common name French common name OSPAR-List Habitats DirectiveAnnex II Habitats DirectiveAnnex IV Birds DirectiveAnnex I ASCOBANS ACCOBAMS Bonn conventionAnnex I Bonn conventionAnnex II Particular sensitivity towards specific human pressuresactivities Commonness (global occurrence andor locally abundance) 1) Practicability to monitor the species 2) Inclusion in existing monitoring programmes D4 criterion 1 groups with fast turnover rates () that will respond quickly to ecosystem change D4 criterion 2 groupsspecies that are targeted by human activities or that are indirectly affected by them (in particular by-catch and discards) D4 criterion 3 groupsspecies at the top of the food web D4 criterion 4 long- distance anadromous and catadromous migrating species D4 criterion 5 groupsspecies that are tightly linked to specific groupsspecies at another trophic level Arctic North Sea Celtic Seas BiscayIberia Macaronesia Comments on individual species

France Spain Portugal Spain Portugal

Mammals

Seals Cystophora cristata hooded seal Phoque agrave capuchon no No Yes No No x x x x

Seals Erignathus barbatus bearded seal Phoque barbu no No Yes No No x x x x

Seals Odobenus rosmarus walrus Morse no No Yes No No x x

Seals Phoca groenlandica Groeland seal Phoque du Groenland no No Yes No No x

Seals Phoca hispida ringed seal Phoque anneleacute no No Yes No No x x x x x

Toothed whales Feresa attenuata pygmy killer whale Orque naine no No Yes No No x x

Toothed whales Kogia sima Dwarf Sperm Whale Cachalot nain coastal behaviour no No Yes No No ocassional sightings x x x x listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Mesoplodon europaeus Gervais beaked whale Baleine agrave bec de Gervais no No Yes No No x x x x x

Toothed whales Mesoplodon mirus Trues Beaked Whale Baleine agrave bec de True no No Yes No No x x

Toothed whales Peponocephala electra melon-headed whale Peacuteponoceacutephale no No Yes No No x x

Toothed whales Stenella frontalis Atlantic spotted dolphin Dauphin tacheteacute de lAtlantique yes No Yes No No x x x

Birds

Coastal top predator Falco eleonorae Eleonoras Falcon Faucon dEacuteleacuteonore no No Yes No No x x (breeding) listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal top predator Falco pelegrinoides Barbary Falcon Faucon de Barbarie No Yes No x (breeding)

Coastal top predator Pandion haliaetus Osprey Balbuzard pecirccheur No Yes No No x x x x (breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant) listed on Barcelona Convention

Inshore pelagic feeders Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant Grand cormoran yes 1) and 2) No Yes Yes No No x (breeding) x x x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Inshore surface feeders Larus audouinii Audouins Gull Goeacuteland dAudouin No No No No x(migrant) x (breeding) x (occasional) This species breeds in Mediterranean but migrates regularly to Golf of Cadiz (NEA) It is also cited by IUCN in Portugal Listed on Barcelona Convention

Inshore surface feeders Larus sabinii Sabines Gull Mouette de Sabine yes No Yes No x x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Intertidal benthic feeders Anser albifrons albifrons European White-fronted Goose Oie rieuse No No x (occasional) x (occasional) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore pelagic feeders Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar Fulmar boreacuteal yes No No x x x x (migrant)

Offshore pelagic feeders Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis Storm Petrel Oceacuteanite tempecircte de Meacutediterraneacutee yes No No x

Offshore pelagic feeders Morus bassanus Northern gannet Fou de Bassan fishing discards yes No Yes Yes No No x x x x x x x(Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore pelagic feeders Puffinus gravis Great Shearwater Puffin majeur yes No No x x (migrant) x (migrant) x (migrant) X Highly migrant species breeding in South Hemisphere

Offshore pelagic feeders Puffinus griseus Sooty Shearwater Puffin fuligineux yes No No x x x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant) Highly migrant species breeding in South Hemisphere

Offshore pelagic feeders Puffinus puffinus Manx Shearwater Puffin des anglais yes No No x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) x (migrant) x

Offshore surface feeders Alca Torda Razorbill Pingouin torda Oil spills yes 1) and 2) No No x x x x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Fratercula arctica Atlantic Puffin Macareux moine Oil spills yes 1) and 2) No No x x x x x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Larus argentatus European Herring Gull Goeland argenteacute fishing discards yes 1) and 2) No Yes No No No x (breeding) x (breeding) x (breeding) x (occasional)

Offshore surface feeders Larus marinus Great Black-backed gull Goeland marin fishing discards yes 1) and 2) No Yes No No No x (breeding) x (breeding) x (breeding) x x X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Larus michahellis Yellow-legged gull Goeland leucopheacutee fishing discards yes No Yes No No No x x x (breeding) x x

Offshore surface feeders Larus ridibundus Black headed gull Mouette rieuse fishing discards yes No Yes No No No x x x x X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Oceanodroma monteiroi Oceacuteanite de Monteiro Monteiros storm petrel x

Offshore surface feeders Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua Labbe parasite fishing discards No Yes No No No x x x x X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Stercorarius pomarinus Pomarine skua Labbe pomarin fishing discards No Yes No No No x x x x X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Stercorarius skua Great skua Grand labbe fishing discards No Yes No No No x x x x X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Fish

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Ammodytes marinus Lesser sand-eel Lanccedilon nordique directed fishing yes No No x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Arnoglossus laterna Scaldfish Arnoglosse lanterne bycatch yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No yes x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Brosme brosme Tusk Brosme directing fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Capros aper Boarfish Sanglier commun directing fishing yes No No Yes x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Chelidonichthys cuculus Red gurnard Grondin rouge bycatch yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x (rare) x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic halibut Fleacutetan de lAtlantique directing fishing yes No No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Lepidorhombus boscii Four-spotted megrim Cardine agrave quatre taches directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Megrim Cardine franche directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Lophius budegassa Black anglerfish Baudroie rousse directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes Yes No yes x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Lophius piscatorius Anglerfish Baudroie commune directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes Yes No yes x x x x (ocassional) x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock Eglefin directing fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Merlangius merlangus Whiting Merlan directed fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Merluccius merluccius European hake Merlu europeacuteen directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes Yes No yes x x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Microchirus variegatus Thickback sole Sole-perdix commune bycatch yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Micromesistius poutassou Blue-whiting Merlan bleu directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x X

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Molva dypterygia Blue ling Lingue bleue directing fishing yes No Yes x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Molva macrophthalma Spanish ling Lingue espagnole No x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Molva molva Ling Lingue blanche (franche) directing fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Mullus barbatus Red mullet Rouget de vase directing fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Mullus surmuletus Surmullet Rouget-barbet de roche directing fishing yes No Yes x x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Pagellus acarne Axillary seabream Pageot blanc directed fishing No x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Pollachius virens Saithe Lieu noir directed fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Polyprion americanus Wreckfish Cernier bycatch No x x X

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Solea solea Common sole Sole commune directed fishing yes 1) and 2) No Yes x x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Spondyliosoma cantharus Black seabream Dorade grise directed fishing No x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Trigla lucerna Tub gurnard Grondin perlon directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Amblyraja radiata Starry ray Raie radieacutee bycatch No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Dasyatis pastinaca common stingray Pastenague commune directed fishing No x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Dipturus oxyrinchus Long-nosed Skate Pocheteau noir directed fishing No x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Galeorhinus galeus Tope shark Requin hacirc bycatch yes No x x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Gymnura altavela Spiny butterfly ray Raie papillon eacutepineuse No x listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Leucoraja circularis Sandy ray Raie circulaire No x x x x (rare) listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Leucoraja naevus Cuckoo ray Raie fleurie bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Mustellus asterias Starry smooth-hound Emissole tacheteacutee directed fishing No x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Myliobatis aquila Eagle Ray Raie aigle bycatch No x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Oxynotus centrina Angular Rough-shark Centrine commune No x x x x (rare) listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Raja asterias Mediterranean starry ray Raie eacutetoileacutee bycatch No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Raja undulata Undulate ray Raie brunette bycatch 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Rhinobatos cemiculus Blackchin guitarfish Guitare de mer fouisseuse No x listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Rhinobatos rhinobatos Common guitarfish Guitare de mer commune No x x (rare) listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Scyliorhynus canicula Lesser spotted dogfish Petite roussette bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x x x x (ocassional)

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Scyliorhynus stellaris Nursehound Roussette directed fishing yes No x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Squatina aculeata Sawback angelshark Ange de mer eacutepineux No x x listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Beryx sp Alfonsino Beacuteryx directed fishing yes No Yes x x x x Coastal and deep sea benthopelagic bony fish

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Clupea harengus Herring Hareng directed fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Engraulis encrasicolus European anchovy Anchois europeacuteen directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Gadiculus argenteus Silvery pout Gadicule argenteacute bycatch yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Pollachius pollachius Pollack Lieu jaune directed fishing yes No Yes x Coastal and deep sea benthopelagic bony fish

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Sarda sarda Atlantic bonito Bonite agrave dos rayeacute directed fishing yes No Yes x x x x x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Sardina pilchardus European pilchard Sardine directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x x X

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Scomber japonicus Chub mackerel Maquereau espagnol directed fishing no 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x x x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel Maquereau directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Thunnus alalunga Albacore Thon germon directed fishing yes 1) and 2) no Yes Yes No yes x x x x Mesopelagic bony fish

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Trachurus picturatus Blue jack mackerel Chinchard du large directed fishing yes No x x x Coastal and deep sea benthopelagic bony fish

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Trachurus trachurus Atlantic horse mackerel Chinchard directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic bony fish Zeus faber John Dory Saint Pierre directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes Yes No yes x x x x (ocassional) x Coastal and deep sea benthopelagic bony fish

Coastal and deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Carcharhinus plumbeus Sandbar shark Requin gris yes No x x (ocassional) listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Dalatias licha Kitefin shark Squale liche bycatch No Yes x x x

Coastal and deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Sphyrna lewini Scalloped hammerhead Requin-marteau halicorne bycatch No yes yes no x x listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Sphyrna zygaena Hammerhead shark Requin marteau commun No x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal demersal bony fish Ammodytes sp Sandell Lanccedilon directing fishing yes No Yes x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Ammodytes tobianus Small sandeel Lanccedilon eacutequille directed fishing yes No x x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Atherina boyeri Big-scale sand smelt Joeumll directed fishing yes No x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Atherina hepsetus Mediterranean sand smelt Sauclet directed fishing yes No x

Coastal demersal bony fish Atherina presbyter Sand smelt Precirctre directed fishing yes No x x x x x X

Coastal demersal bony fish Balistes capriscus Grey triggerfish Baliste cabri directed fishing No x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Callionymus lyra Dragonet Dragonnet lyre bycatch yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Chelidonichthys gurnardus Grey gurnard Grondin gris bycatch yes 1) and 2) yes Yes No No yes x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Coelorhynchus caelorhynchus Hollowsnout grenadier Grenadier raton bycatch 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Conger conger European conger Congre directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes Yes Yes No yes x x x x X

Coastal demersal bony fish Dicentrarchus labrax European seabass Bar commun directing fishing yes No Yes x x x (ocassional)

Coastal demersal bony fish Gymnammodytes cicerelus Mediterranean sand eel Lanccedilon cicerelle directed fishing yes No x X

Coastal demersal bony fish Gymnammodytes semisquamatus Smooth sandeel Lanccedilon aiguille directed fishing yes No x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Hyperoplus immaculatus Corbins sand-eel Lanccedilon jolivet directed fishing yes No x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Hyperoplus lanceolatus Greater sand eel Lanccedilon commun directed fishing yes No x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Labrus bergylta Ballan wrasse Vieille directing fishing yes No Yes x x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Limanda limanda Dab Limande directing fishing yes No Yes x

Coastal demersal bony fish Macroramphosus scolopax Longspine snipefish Beacutecasse de mer directing fishing yes No Yes x x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Microstomus kitt Lemon sole Limande sole directing fishing yes No x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Pagrus pagrus Red porgy Pagre directed fishing No x x x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Platichthys flesus European flounder Flet commun directing fishing yes No Yes x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Pleuronectes platessa European plaice Plie directing fishing yes No Yes x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Sciaena umbra Brown meagre Corb No x x x listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal demersal bony fish Scophthalmus maximus Turbot Turbot directing fishing yes No Yes x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Scophthalmus rhombus Brill Barbue directing fishing yes No Yes x x

Coastal demersal bony fish Umbrina cirrosa Shi drum Ombrine cocirctiegravere No x listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal demersal elasmobranch Raja brachyura Blonde ray Raie lisse bycatch No Yes x x x

Coastal pelagic bony fish Diplodus vulgaris Common two-banded seabream Sar agrave tecircte noire directed fishing yes No Yes x x x x

Coastal pelagic bony fish Sprattus sprattus Sprat Sprat directed fishing yes No Yes x Coastal benthopelagic bony fish

Coastal pelagic bony fish Trisopterus luscus Pouting Tacaud commun directed fishing yes No Yes x x Coastal benthopelagic bony fish

Coastal pelagic bony fish Trisopterus minutus Poor cod Petit tacaud directed fishing yes No Yes x Coastal benthopelagic bony fish

Deep sea demersal bony fish Alepocephalus agassizii Agassiz slickhead Cassigneacute brun pourpe bycatch No x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Alepocephalus bairdii Bairds slickhead Cassigneacute gulliver bycatch No x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Alepocephalus productus Smalleye smooth-head Cassigneacute eacutemacieacute bycatch No x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Argentina silus Greater silver smelt Grande argentine directed fishing yes No Yes x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Chimaera monstrosa Rabbit fish Chimegravere commune bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x x (rare) x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose grenadier Grenadier de roche directed fishing yes No Yes x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Helicolenus dactylopterus Bluemouth rockfish Seacutebaste chegravevre bycatch 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Hoplostethus mediterraneus Mediterranean slimehead Hoplostegravete argenteacute bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Lepidion eques North Atlantic codling Moro long fil bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Malacocephalus laevis Softhead grenadier Grenadier barbu bycatch 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Mora moro Common mora Moro commun directed fishing yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Nezumia aequalis Atlantic grenadier Grenadier lisse bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Pagellus bogaraveo Blackspot seabream Dorade rose directed fishing collapse 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x x X

Deep sea demersal bony fish Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard Phycis de fond directed fishing yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Synaphobranchus kaupii Kaups arrowtooth eel Egorgeacute ventre noir directed fishing No x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Trachyrhynchus scabrus Roughsnout grenadier Grenadier-scie commun bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x x (ocassional)

Deep sea demersal bony fish Trachyscorpia cristulata cristulata Atlantic thornyhead Seacutebaste de profondeur directed fishing 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x x x (rare) X

Deep sea demersal elasmobranch Centroselachus crepidater Long nose velvet dogfish Pailona agrave long nez bycatch No x

Deep sea demersal elasmobranch Heptranchias perlo Sharpnose sevengill shark Requin perlon yes No x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Deep sea demersal elasmobranch Hexanchus griseus Bluntnose sixgill shark Requin griset directed fishing No x x

Deep sea demersal elasmobranchs Etmopterus spinax Velvet belly Sagre commun bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes Yes No yes x x (ocassional) x

Deep sea demersal elasmobranchs Galeus melastomus Blackmouth catshark Chien espagnol bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes No No yes x x

Deep sea pelagic bony fish Aphanopus carbo Black scabbardfish Sabre noir directed fishing yes No x x x x x X Bathypelagic bonyfish

Deep sea pelagic bony fish Xiphias gladius Swordfish Espadon targetbycatch yes No Yes Yes No x x x x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention Mesopelagic bony fish

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Alopias vulpinus Fox shark (Thresher) Requin renard yes No x x x (ocassional) X listed on Barcelona Convention

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Isurus oxyrinchus Mako shark Requin Mako No x x x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Mobula mobular Devil Ray Mante No x x (occasional) x (ocassional) X listed on Barcelona Convention

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Odontaspis ferox Smalltooth sand tiger Requin feacuteroce yes No x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Prionace glauca Blue shark Peau bleue yes No x x x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranchs Deania calcea Birdbeak dogfish Squale savate commun bycatch yes 1) and 2) no Yes Yes No yes x x x

Invertebrates cephalopods

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Eledone cirrhosa Curled octopus poulpe blanc directed fishing yes 1) and 2) no yes no No yes x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Galiteuthis armata Armed cranch squid Encornet-outre armeacute No x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Gonatus steenstrupi Atlantic armhook squid No x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Histioteuthis bonnellii Umbrella squid calmar agrave ombrelle No x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Histioteuthis reversa Reverse jewell squid No x x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Martialia hyadesi Sevenstar flying squid No

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Megalocranchia sp Glass squid calmar de verre No x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Octopus vulgaris Common octopus poulpe commun directed fishing yes 1) and 2) no yes no No yes x x x x x x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Rondeletiola minor Lentil bobtail squid seacutepiole bobie bycatch yes 1) and 2) no yes no No yes x x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Sepia officinalis Common cuttlefish seiche commune directed fishing yes 1) and 2) no yes no No yes x x x x x x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Sepietta oweniana Common bobtail squid seacutepiole bycatch yes 1) and 2) no yes no No yes x x x x

Coastalshelf benthic cephalopods Sepiola sp Bobtail squid seacutepiole commune bycatch yes 1) and 2) no yes no No yes x x x x x x

Coastalshelf pelagic cephalopods Illex coindetii Broadtail shortfin squid encornet rouge directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes yes no No yes x x x

Coastalshelf pelagic cephalopods Loligo forbesii Forbes squid Calmar veineacute directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes yes no No yes x x x x

Coastalshelf pelagic cephalopods Loligo vulgaris European squid calmar commun directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes yes no No yes x x x x x x x

Coastalshelf pelagic cephalopods Todarodes sagittatus European flying squid Toutenon commun directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes yes yes No yes x x x x

Coastalshelf pelagic cephalopods Todaropsis eblanae Lesser flying squid Toutenon souffleur directed fishing yes 1) and 2) yes yes no No yes x x x

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Architeuthis dux Giant squid calmar geacuteant No x iquest x

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Bathypolypus sponsalis Globose octopus No x

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Haliphron atlanticus Seven-arm octopus No x X

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Opistoteuthis agassizii No x x

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Stauroteuthis syrtensis No

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Taningia danae Dana octopus squid No x x x

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Teuthowenia megalops Atlantic cranch squid Encornet-outre atlantique No x x


Functional Groups (Ecotypes) Species (Scientific Name) English common name French common name OSPAR-List Habitats DirectiveAnnex II Habitats DirectiveAnnex IV Birds DirectiveAnnex I ASCOBANS ACCOBAMS Bonn conventionAnnex I Bonn conventionAnnex II Particular sensitivity towards specific human pressuresactivities Commonness (global occurrence andor locally abundance) 1) Practicability to monitor the species 2) Inclusion in existing monitoring programmes D4 criterion 1 groups with fast turnover rates () that will respond quickly to ecosystem change D4 criterion 2 groupsspecies that are targeted by human activities or that are indirectly affected by them (in particular by-catch and discards) D4 criterion 3groupsspecies at the top of the food web D4 criterion 4 long- distance anadromous and catadromous migrating species D4 criterion 5 groupsspecies that are tightly linked to specific groupsspecies at another trophic level Arctic North Sea Celtic Seas BiscayIberia Macaronesia Comments on individual species


Mammals

Baleen whales Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale Baleine franche boreacuteale x x hunted in some regions No Yes Yes No Yes x x

Baleen whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata Common minke whale Rorqual agrave museau pointu petit rorqual x x hunting in some regions entanglement possibly vessel strike yes No Yes Yes No Yes x x x x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Baleen whales Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale Rorqual boreacuteal x x x x no No Yes No Yes x x x x (occasional) x (occasional) x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Baleen whales Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale Baleine bleue x x no No Yes No Yes x x x x x (occasional) x x X

Baleen whales Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale Rorqual commun x x x x vessel strike entanglement yes 2) No Yes Yes No Yes x occassional sighting x x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention

Baleen whales Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale Baleine franche noire x x x x x ship strike and entanglement No Yes No Yes x x (occasional) x (occasional) x x(Vagrant) listed on Barcelona Convention

Baleen whales Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Baleine agrave bosse x x x x yes No Yes No Yes occassional sighting x x x (occasional) x (occasional) x x Some evidence of recovery for this species following historic depletion due to hunting In Canary islands only ocasional Listed on Barcelona Convention

Seals Halichoerus grypus Grey seal Phoque gris x hunted in some regions shot as fisheryaquaculture protection bycatch yes 1) and 2) No Yes Yes No No x x x x x x(Vagrant) Why the focus on Annex II All species of seal are covered if annexes IV and V are also taken into account

Seals Phoca vitulina Harbour seal Phoque veau-marin x x hunted in some regions shot as fisheryaquaculture protection bycatch yes 1) and 2) No Yes Yes No No x x x x x x(Vagrant) Why the focus on Annex II All species of seal are covered if annexes IV and V are also taken into account

Seals Monachus monachus Mediterranean monk seal Phoque moine de Meacutediterranneacutee x x x no No Yes Yes No No x (occasional) x (occasional) Added as present in southern OSPAR area as well as in MediterraneanExtinct in the AzoresListed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Beacutelouga x pollution in western North Atlantic No Yes Yes No No x Beluga and narwhal have never been mentioned at ASCOBANS

Toothed whales Delphinus delphis Common dolphin Dauphin commun x x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike yes 1) and 2) No Yes Yes No No most common offshore species in North Atlantic Sightings occur in North Sea x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Globicephala macrorhynchus Short-finned pilot whale Globiceacutephale tropical x no No Yes No No x x x X

Toothed whales Globicephala melas Long-finned pilot whale Globiceacutephale noir x x x x (North Sea only) hunted in some regions entanglement yes 1) and 2) No Yes Yes No No sub-Arctic x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Grampus griseus Rissos dolphin Dauphin de Risso x x x x (North Sea only) yes 1) and 2) No Yes No No x x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Hyperoodon ampullatus Northern bottlenose whale Hypeacuteroodon boreacuteal x x x x noise disturbance no No Yes Yes No No Arctic and off the continental shelf in NE Atlantic x x x x (occasional) x X

Toothed whales Kogia breviceps Pygmy sperm whale Cachalot pygmeacute x yes No yes Yes No No ocassional sightings x x x (occasional) x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Lagenodelphis hosie Frasers dolphin Dauphin de Fraser x No yes Yes No No x x(Vagrant)

Toothed whales Lagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic white-sided dolphin Dauphin agrave flancs blancs x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike no No Yes Yes No No sub-Arctic x x x x (occasional)

Toothed whales Lagenorhynchus albirostris White-beaked dolphin Dauphin agrave bec blanc x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike yes (locally) No Yes Yes No No x x x x x (occasional) Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Mesoplodon bidens Sowerbys beaked whale Baleine de Sowerby x x x noise disturbance yes No Yes Yes No No Arctic and off the continental shelf in NE Atlantic x x(ocassional) X

Toothed whales Mesoplodon densirostris Blainvilles beaked whale Baleine agrave bec de Blainville x x x yes No Yes No No x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Monodon monoceros Narwhal Narval x No Yes No No x Beluga and narwhal have never been mentioned at ASCOBANS

Toothed whales Orcinus orca Killer whale Orque x x x x pollution (ASCOBANS have just funded a project to look at this) yes No Yes Yes No No x x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise Marsouin commun x (areas II and III only) x x x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike yes 1)no 2)yes No Yes Yes No No x x x x x(Vagrant) Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale Cachalot macroceacutephale x x x x yes 1) and 2) No Yes No No x x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Pseudorca carssidens False killer whale Fausse orque x x x no No Yes No No x x x (occasional) x (occasional) x X In Canary islands only ocasional Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin Dauphin bleu et blanc x x x yes 1) and 2) No Yes No No x x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin Dauphin agrave rostre eacutetroit x x x no No Yes No No x X In Azores vagrant Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Tursiops truncatus Common bottlenose dolphin Grand dauphin x x x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike yes 1) and 2) No Yes Yes No No Have been reported from northern Norway and Iceland but Moray Firth population considered most northerly residents x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Toothed whales Ziphius cavirostris Cuviers beaked whale Baleine agrave bec de Cuvier x x x yes 1) and 2) No Yes No No x x x x x x X

Birds

Coastal top predator Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Faucon pegravelerin x x Persecution No Yes Yes No No x x x x x (breeding) x (breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Coastal top predator Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle Grand aigle de mer x Persecutionrenewables No Yes Yes No No x x x x (occasional)

Inshore benthic feeders Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii European Shag Cormoran huppeacute x yes 1) and 2) No Yes Yes No Yes x (breeding) x x x (breeding) x (breeding)

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia arctica Black-throated diver Plongeon arctique x No No Yes No Yes x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant)

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia immer Great Northern diver Plongeon imbrin x No No Yes No Yes x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia stellata Red-throated diver Plongeon catmarin x shipping amp offshore renewables No Yes Yes No Yes x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Inshore pelagic feeders Mergus albellus (Mergellus albellus) Smew Harle piette x No No Yes No No x x x (occasional)

Inshore pelagic feeders Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe Gregravebe esclavon x No No Yes No No x x x x (occasional) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Inshore surface feeders Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern Guifette moustac x No No Yes No No x x (breeding) x (breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Inshore surface feeders Chlidonias niger Black Tern Guifette noire x x No No Yes No No x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Inshore surface feeders Gelochelidon nilotica (Sterna nilotica) Gull-billed Tern Sterne hansel x No No Yes No No x x (breeding) x (breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant) Listed on Barcelona Convention

Inshore surface feeders Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean Gull Mouette meacutelanoceacutephale x yes No No No No No x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Inshore surface feeders Larus minutus Little Gull Mouette pygmeacutee x No No No No No x x x x (occasional) x x (occasional) x (occasional)

Inshore surface feeders Sterna albifrons Little Tern Sterne naine x x No No Yes No No x x x x (breeding) x (breeding)

Inshore surface feeders Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Sterne caspienne x No No Yes No Yes x x x (migrant) x (migrant)

Inshore surface feeders Sterna dougallii Roseate tern Sterne de Dougall x x x Hunting yes 2) No Yes Yes No Yes x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) x (occasional) X Hunting occurs outside OSPAR Maritime region

Inshore surface feeders Sterna hirundo Common tern Sterne pierregarin x x yes 1) and 2) No No Yes No Yes x x x x x (breeding) x (migrant) x (breeding) X

Inshore surface feeders Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern Sterne arctique x x No No Yes No Yes x x x x x (occasional) x (migrant) x (occasional) x (occasional)

Inshore surface feeders Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern Sterne caugek x Hunting No Yes Yes No Yes x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant) Hunting occurs outside OSPAR Maritime region

Intertidal benthic feeders Anser albifrons flavirostris Greenland white-fronted goose Oie du Groenland x x Hunting No Yes No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Anser erythropus Lesser White-fronted Goose Oie naine x x x Hunting No Yes No No No

Intertidal benthic feeders Branta leucopsis Barnacle Goose Bernache nonnette x Hunting No Yes No No No x x x x X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Intertidal benthic feeders Branta ruficollis Red-breasted Goose Bernache agrave cou roux x x Hunting No Yes No No No x (occasional)

Intertidal benthic feeders Calidris alpina schinzii Dunlin Beacutecasseau variable x No No No No No x x x x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Charadrius alexandrinus Kentish Plover Gravelot agrave collier interrompu x No No No No No x x x x (breeding) x (breeding) x (breeding) X

Intertidal benthic feeders Cygnus bewickii Bewicks Swan Cygne de Bewick x No No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan Cygne chanteur x No No No No No x x x x (occasional) x

Intertidal benthic feeders Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Echasse blanche x No No No No No x x x x (breeding) x (breeding) x (breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Intertidal benthic feeders Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica x No No No No No x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) iquest X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Intertidal benthic feeders Numenius tenuirostris Slender-billed Curlew Courlis agrave bec grecircle x No No No No No X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Intertidal benthic feeders Philomachus pugnax Ruff Combattant varieacute x No No No No No x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) x (migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Intertidal benthic feeders Pluvialis apricaria Golden plover Pluvier doreacute x No No No No No x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) x (occasional) x (occasional)

Intertidal benthic feeders Recurvirostra avosetta Pied avocet Avocette eacuteleacutegante x No No No No No x x x x (breeding) x (breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Intertidal benthic feeders Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Chevalier sylvain x No No No No No x x x x x (occasional) x x (occasional)

Intertidal benthic feeders Xenus cinereus (Tringa cinerea) Terek Sandpiper Chevalier bargette x No No No No No x (occasional)

Offshore pelagic feeders Uria aalge Common murre Guillemot de Troiumll x x Oil spills yes No Yes Yes No Yes x x x this population may be extinct

Offshore pelagic feeders Uria lomvia Thick-billed murre Guillemot de Bruumlnnich x Hunting no No Yes Yes No Yes x x(Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Bulweria bulwerii Bulwers Petrel Peacutetrel de Bulwer x No No No No No x x x (breeding) X

Offshore surface feeders Calonectris diomedea Corys Shearwater Puffin cendreacute x fishing bycatch No Yes Yes No No x x x (migrant) x (breeding) x (breeding) X moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) Listed on Barcelona Convention

Offshore surface feeders Hydrobates pelagicus European Storm-petrel Oceacuteanite tempecircte x yes No No No No No x x x x x (breeding) x (migrant) x (breeding) X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Offshore surface feeders Larus fuscus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull Goeacuteland brun x fishing discards yes 1) and 2) No Yes No No No x x (breeding) x (breeding) x (breeding) x x(breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Melanitta nigra Black Scoter Macreuse noire x x (migrant) x (migrant) x (migrant) x (migrant) x(Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Oceanodroma castro Madeiran Storm-petrel Oceacuteanite de Castro x No No No No No x x (breeding) x (breeding) X

Offshore surface feeders Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leachs Storm-petrel Oceacuteanite culblanc x No No No No No x x x x x (migrant) x (migrant) x (migrant) x(Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Pagophila eburnea Ivory gull Mouette blanche x No No No No No x

Offshore surface feeders Pelagodroma marina White-faced Storm-petrel Oceacuteanite freacutegate x No No No No No x (occasional) x(breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant presently non-breeding)

Offshore surface feeders Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Phalarope agrave bec eacutetroit x No No No No No x x x x iquest x(Not Breeding - vagrant)

Offshore surface feeders Pterodroma feae Feas Petrel Peacutetrel gongon x No No No No No X

Offshore surface feeders Pterodroma madeira Zinos Petrel Peacutetrel de Madegravere x No No No No No X

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus assimilis baroli Little shearwater Petit Puffin x x No No Yes No No x x x(breeding) X

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus mauretanicus Balearic shearwater Puffin des Baleacuteares x x fishing bycatch yes No Yes Yes No No x x x(migrant) x(migrant) X (Not Breeding - vagrant) moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) Listed on Barcelona Convention

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus yelkouan Yelkouan Shearwater Puffin yelkouan x fishing bycatch yes No Yes Yes No No x x(migrant) moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) Listed on Barcelona Convention

Offshore surface feeders Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake Mouette tridactyle x Fishing bycatch amp competition for food yes No Yes Yes No Yes x x x x x (breeding) X (Not Breeding - vagrant) moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008)

Subtidal benthic feeders Polysticta stelleri Stellers eider Eider de Steller x x No No No No No x

Reptiles

Turtles Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle Tortue caouanne x x x x x by-catch entanglement yes 2) No Yes No No Yes x x x x x nesting in these spp occurs in the Med hence on AnnexII but no nesting in North East Atlantic where mainly juveniles are encountered

Turtles Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle Tortue verte x x x x by-catch entanglement yes 2) No Yes No No No x x x x nesting in these spp occurs in the Med hence on AnnexII but no nesting in North East Atlantic where mainly juveniles are encountered

Turtles Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle Tortue luth x x x x entanglement by-catch pollution (plastic floatsome ingestion) yes 2) No Yes No No No x x x x x x adults of this species migrate throughout the North Atlantic but no nesting occurs in EU waters

Turtles Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle Tortue imbriqueacutee x x x by-catch entanglement yes No Yes No No No x x x juveniles are encountered in North Atlantic no nesting in EU waters

Turtles Lepidochelys kempii Kemps Ridley Tortue de Kemp x x x yes No Yes No No No x x x (occasional)

Fishes

Coastal and deep sea demersal bony fish Gadus morhua - populations in the OSPAR regions II and III[2] Cod Morue de lAtlantique x targetbycatch yes No Yes No No x x x Listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Dipturus batis (synonym Raja batis) Common skate Pocheteau gris x bycatch yes No Yes No No x x x x x x X Recent reserch suggest that it include several distinct specie Listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Raja clavata Thornback skate ray Raie boucleacutee x targetbycatch yes No Yes No No x x x x x x X

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Raja montagui (synonym Dipturus montagui) Spotted ray Raie douce x targetbycatch yes No Yes No No x x x x x x

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Rostroraja alba White skate Raie blanche x bycatch yes No Yes No No x x x x x x Listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea demersal elasmobranch Squatina squatina Angel shark Ange de mer commun x bycatch No Yes Yes No x x x x x Listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal and deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Lamna nasus Porbeagle Requin-taupe commun x yes No Yes Yes No x x x x x X

Coastal demersal bony fish Hippocampus guttulatus (synonym Hippocampus ramulosus) Long-snouted seahorse Hippocampe moucheteacute x yes No No No No x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal demersal bony fish Hippocampus hippocampus Short-snouted seahorse Hippocampe agrave museau court x yes No No No No x x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Coastal demersal elasmobranch Squalus acanthias [Northeast Atlantic] spurdog Aiguillat commun x bycatch yes No Yes Yes No x x x x x

Deep sea demersal bony fish Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange roughy Hoplostegravete rouge x targetbycatch yes No Yes No No x x x X

Deep sea demersal elasmobranch Centrophorus granulosus Gulper shark Squale-chagrin commun x bycatch No yes yes no x x x x x X

Deep sea demersal elasmobranch Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale gulper shark Squale-chagrin de lAtlantique x bycatch No yes yes no x x x x x X

Deep sea demersal elasmobranch Centroscymnus coelolepis Portuguese dogfish Pailona commun (requin portugais) x bycatch No yes yes no x x x x x X

Deep sea pelagic bony fish Thunnus thynnus Bluefin tuna Thon rouge x fishery yes No Yes Yes No x x x x x X listed on Barcelona Convention Mesopelagic bony fish

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Carcharodon carcharias Great White Shark Grand requin blanc x x No Yes Yes No x (rare) x (rare) x

Deep sea pelagic elasmobranch Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark Requin pegravelerin x x bycatch yes 1) and 2) No yes no no x x x x x x X

Diadromous bony fish Acipenser sturio Sturgeon Esturgeon x x x x x Pollution obstacles to migration became very rare 1) and 2) No No No Yes x x x x x Listed on Barcelona Convention

Diadromous bony fish Alosa alosa Allis shad Alose vraie x x Pollution fishery obstacles to migration locally common 1) and 2) No No No No x x x x x Mainly freshwater impacts Listed on Barcelona Convention

Diadromous bony fish Alosa fallax Twaite shad Alose feinte x Pollution fishery obstacles to migration locally common 1) and 2) No No No No x x x x Mainly freshwater impacts Listed on Barcelona Convention

Diadromous bony fish Anguilla anguilla European eel Anguille europeacuteenne x fishery obstacles to migration Pollutants in river sediments and in food chain locally common 1) and 2) No Yes No Yes x x x x x x X Listed on Barcelona Convention

Diadromous bony fish Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus Houting Coreacutegone lavaret x x x Pollution obstacles to migration No No No No x Mainly freshwater impacts Listed on Barcelona Convention

Diadromous bony fish Lampetra fluviatilis (except the Finnish and Swedish populations) River lamprey Lamproie de riviegravere x fishery obstacles to migration Pollutants in river sediments locally common 1) and 2) No No No No x x x x Mainly freshwater impacts Listed on Barcelona Convention

Diadromous bony fish Petromyzon marinus (FFH Annex II except the Swedish populations) Sea lamprey Lamproie marine x x fishery obstacles to migration Pollutants in river sediments locally common 1) and 2) No No No No x x x x x Mainly freshwater impacts Listed on Barcelona Convention

Diadromous bony fish Salmo salar Salmon Saumon x fishery obstacles to migration Pollutants in river sediments became rare 1) and 2) No No No Yes x x x x x Listed on Barcelona Convention

Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise

Tursiops truncatus Common bottlenose dolphin This list is a little odd - its not even taken from the ASCOBANS website ASCOBANS covers all species of odontocete except sperm whales However the focus has traditionally been on harbour porpoise bottlenose common white-beaked white-sideded Rissos and triped dolphins orca long finned pilot whale northern bottlenose whale and the beaked whales (Ziphiidae)

Delphinus delphis Common dolphin

Lagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic white-sided dolphin

Lagenorhynchus albirostris White-beaked dolphin

Orcinus orca Killer whale

Delphinapterus leucas Beluga

Monodon monoceros Narwhal

Mesoplodon europaeus Gervais beaked whale

Mesoplodon bidens Sowerbys beaked whale

Hyperoodon ampullatus Northern bottlenose whale

Globicephala melas Long-finned pilot whale

Anser albifrons flavirostris Greenland white-fronted goose Birds directive Annex I

Anser erythropus Lesser White-fronted Goose Birds directive Annex I

Anthus campestris Tawny Pipit Birds directive Annex I

Branta leucopsis Barnacle Goose Birds directive Annex I

Branta ruficollis Red-breasted Goose Birds directive Annex I

Bulweria bulwerii Bulwers Petrel Birds directive Annex I

Calidris alpina schinzii Dunlin Birds directive Annex I

Calonectris diomedea Corys Shearwater Birds directive Annex I

Charadrius alexandrinus Kentish Plover Birds directive Annex I

Charadrius morinellus Eurasian Dotterel Birds directive Annex I

Chlidonias hybridus Whiskered Tern Birds directive Annex I

Chlidonias niger Black Tern Birds directive Annex I

Cygnus bewickii Bewicks Swan Birds directive Annex I

Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan Birds directive Annex I

Falco eleonorae Eleonoras Falcon Birds directive Annex I

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Birds directive Annex I

Fulica cristata Red-knobbed Coot Birds directive Annex I

Gavia arctica Black-throated diver Birds directive Annex I

Gavia immer Great Northern diver Birds directive Annex I

Gavia stellata Red-throated diver Birds directive Annex I

Gelochelidon nilotica (Sterna nilotica) Gull-billed Tern Birds directive Annex I

Grus grus Common Crane Birds directive Annex I

Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle Birds directive Annex I

Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Birds directive Annex I

Hydrobates pelagicus European Storm-petrel Birds directive Annex I

Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean Gull Birds directive Annex I

Larus minutus Little Gull Birds directive Annex I

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Birds directive Annex I

Mergus albellus (Mergellus albellus) Smew Birds directive Annex I

Numenius tenuirostris Slender-billed Curlew Birds directive Annex I

Nyctea scandiaca Snowy Owl Birds directive Annex I

Oceanodroma castro Madeiran Storm-petrel Birds directive Annex I

Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leachs Storm-petrel Birds directive Annex I

Oxyura leucocephala White-headed Duck Birds directive Annex I

Pelagodroma marina White-faced Storm-petrel Birds directive Annex I

Pelecanus onocrotalus Great White Pelican Birds directive Annex I

Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii European Shag Birds directive Annex I

Phalacrocorax pygmeus Pygmy Cormorant Birds directive Annex I

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Birds directive Annex I

Philomachus pugnax Ruff Birds directive Annex I

Pluvialis apricaria Golden plover Birds directive Annex I

Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe Birds directive Annex I

Polysticta stelleri Stellers eider Birds directive Annex I

Porphyrio porphyrio Purple gallinule Birds directive Annex I

Pterodroma feae Feas Petrel Birds directive Annex I

Pterodroma madeira Zinos Petrel Birds directive Annex I

Puffinus assimilis Little shearwater Birds directive Annex I

Puffinus puffinus mauretanicus (Puffinus mauretanicus) Balearic shearwater Birds directive Annex I

Puffinus yelkouan Yelkouan Shearwater Birds directive Annex I

Recurvirostra avosetta Pied avocet Birds directive Annex I

Sterna albifrons Little Tern Birds directive Annex I

Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Birds directive Annex I

Sterna dougallii Roseate tern Birds directive Annex I

Sterna hirundo Common tern Birds directive Annex I

Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern Birds directive Annex I

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern Birds directive Annex I

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Birds directive Annex I

Uria aalge ibericus Iberian guillemot Birds directive Annex I

Xenus cinereus (Tringa cinerea) Terek Sandpiper Birds directive Annex I

SCIENTIFIC NAME Common name

INVERTEBRATES

Arctica islandica Ocean quahog

Megabalanus azoricus Azorean barnacle

Nucella lapillus Dog whelk

Ostrea edulis Flat oyster

Patella ulyssiponensis aspera Azorean limpet

BIRDS

Larus fuscus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull

Pagophila eburnea Ivory gull

Polysticta stelleri Stellers eider

Puffinus assimilis baroli (auctincert) Little shearwater

Puffinus mauretanicus Balearic shearwater

Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake

Sterna dougallii Roseate tern

Uria aalge ndash Iberian population (synonyms Uria aalge albionis Uria aalge ibericus) Iberian guillemot

Uria lomvia Thick-billed murre

FISH

Acipenser sturio Sturgeon

Alosa alosa Allis shad

Anguilla anguilla European eel

Centroscymnus coelolepis Portuguese dogfish

Centrophorus granulosus Gulper shark

Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale gulper shark

Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark

Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus (Linnaeligus 1758) Houting

Dipturus batis (synonym Raja batis) Common Skate

Raja montagui (synonym Dipturus montagui) Spotted Ray

Gadus morhuandash populations in the OSPAR regions II and III[2] Cod

Hippocampus guttulatus (synonym Hippocampus ramulosus) Long-snouted seahorse

Hippocampus hippocampus Short-snouted seahorse

Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange roughy

Lamna nasus Porbeagle

Petromyzon marinus Sea lamprey

Raja clavata Thornback skate ray

Rostroraja alba White skate

Salmo salar Salmon

Squalus acanthias [Northeast Atlantic] spurdog

Squatina squatina Angel shark

Thunnus thynnus Bluefin tuna

REPTILES

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle

MAMMALS

Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale

Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale

Eubalaena glacialis Northern right whale


Scientific Name Annex II Annex IV

Phocidae

Halichoerus grypus (V) X

Phoca vitulina (V) X

Cetacea

Phocoena phocoena X

Tursiops truncatus X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X

Fish

Petromyzontidae

Lampetra fluviatilis (V) (except the Finnish and Swedish populations) X

Petromyzon marinus (o) (except the Swedish populations) X

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Clupeidae

Alosa spp (V) X

Coregonidae

Coregonus oxyrhynchus (anadromous populations in certain sectors of the North Sea) X

Mammals

CETACEA X

All species X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X

Eretmochelys imbricata X

Dermochelyidae

Dermochelys coriacea X

Fish

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Coregonidae

Coregonus oxyrhynchus (anadromous populations in certain sectors of the North Sea except the Finnish populations) X

Cyprinidae

Anaecypris hispanica X

Cyprinodontidae

Valencia hispanica X


Functional Groups (Ecotypes) Species (Scientific Name) Species (Common Name) OSPAR-List Habitats Directive Annex II Habitats Directive Annex IV Birds Directive Annex I ASCOBANS ACCOBAMS Bonn convention Annex I Bonn convention Annex II Particular sensitivity towards specific human pressuresactivities Commonness 1) Practicability to monitor the species 2) Inclusion in existing monitoring programmes D4 criterion 1 groups with fast turnover rates () that will respond quickly to ecosystem change D4 criterion 2 groupsspecies that are targeted by human activities or that are indirectly affected by them (in particular by-catch and discards) D4 criterion 3 groupsspecies at the top of the food web D4 criterion 4 long- distance anadromous and catadromous migrating species D4 criterion 5 groupsspecies that are tightly linked to specific groupsspecies at another trophic level Comments on individual species Arctic North Sea Celtic Seas BiscayIberia Macaronesia

Mammals

Toothed whales Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise x (areas II and III only) x x x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike No Yes Yes No No x x x

Toothed whales Delphinus delphis Common dolphin x x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike No Yes Yes No No most common offshore species in North Atlantic Sightings occur in North Sea x x x

Seals Halichoerus grypus Grey seal x hunted in some regions shot as fisheryaquaculture protection bycatch resource competition No Yes Yes No No Why the focus on Annex II All species of seal are covered if annexes IV and V are also taken into account x x x

Seals Phoca vitulina Harbour seal x x hunted in some regions shot as fisheryaquaculture protection bycatch resource competition No Yes Yes No No x x x x

Birds

Coastal top predator Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon x x Persecution uncommon amp widespread Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No Yes Yes No No No x x x x

Coastal top predator Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle x Persecutionrenewables rare Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No Yes Yes No No No x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia arctica Black-throated diver x uncommon amp local wintering wintering possible No dont know No No Yes No Yes No x x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia immer Great Northern diver x uncommon amp widespread wintering wintering possible No dont know No No Yes No Yes No x x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia stellata Red-throated diver x shipping amp offshore renewables common amp local all year wintering possible No dont know No Yes Yes No Yes possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale x x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe x rare wintering NA NA NA NA No No Yes No No No x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser common amp widespread all year wintering possible No dont know No No Yes No No possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale

Inshore pelagic feeders Phalacrocorax aristotelis European shag Fishing competition for food common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes x

Inshore pelagic feeders Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant Culling common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No No Yes x

Inshore surface feeders Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean Gull x rare all year NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Chlidonias niger Black Tern x x rare on migration NA NA NA NA No No Yes No No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Larus minutus Little Gull x uncommon amp local wintering amp on migration NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna albifrons Little Tern x x Disturbance common amp local breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No No Yes x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna dougallii Roseate tern x x x Hunting uncommon amp local breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Hunting occurs outside OSPAR Maritime region x x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna hirundo Common tern x x common amp widespread breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No No Yes No Yes Yes x x x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern x x Fishing competition for food uncommon amp local breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP no No Yes Yes No Yes No x x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern x Hunting common amp local breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Hunting occurs outside OSPAR Maritime region x x x

Inshore surface feeders Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua Fishing competition for food uncommon amp local breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes x

Inshore surface feeders Larus argentatus Herring gull fishing discards common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes No No no Yes x

Inshore benthic feeders Aythya marila Greater Scaup dredging common amp local wintering wintering possible No dont know No Yes No No Yes possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale

Inshore benthic feeders Somateria mollissima Common Eider dredging common amp local all year wintering possible No dont know No Yes No No Yes possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale

Inshore benthic feeders Melanitta nigra Common Scoter dredging common amp local wintering wintering possible No dont know No Yes No No Yes possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale

Inshore benthic feeders Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed Duck dredging common amp local wintering wintering possible No dont know No Yes No No Yes possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale

Inshore benthic feeders Bucephala clangula Goldeneye dredging common amp widespread wintering wintering possible No dont know No Yes No No Yes possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale

Intertidal benthic feeders Anser albifrons flavirostris Greenland white-fronted goose x x Hunting uncommon amp local Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No Yes No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Branta leucopsis Barnacle Goose x Hunting common amp local Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No Yes No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Calidris alpina schinzii Dunlin x common amp widespread Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Charadrius alexandrinus Kentish Plover x rare Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Cygnus bewickii Bewicks Swan x common amp local Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan x common amp local Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt x rare Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit x uncommon amp widespread Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Philomachus pugnax Ruff x uncommon amp widespread Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Pluvialis apricaria Golden plover x common amp widespread Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Recurvirostra avosetta Pied avocet x common amp local Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper x rare Occurs largely outside MSFD coastal areas (ie estuarine intertidal areas) NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Calidris alba Sanderling common amp widespread wintering amp on migration wintering amp on migration already monitored Yes - WeBS dont know No No No No No possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale x

Intertidal benthic feeders Arenaria interpres Turnstone common amp widespread wintering amp on migration wintering amp on migration already monitored Yes - WeBS dont know No No No No No possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale x

Intertidal benthic feeders Calidris maritima Purple sandpiper uncommon amp widespread wintering amp on migration wintering amp on migration already monitored Yes - WeBS dont know No No No No No possibly Depends on feasibility of producing representaive trends at a OSPAR regional scale x

Intertidal benthic feeders Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher common amp widespread all year wintering amp on migration already monitored Yes - WeBS dont know No No No No No possibly Depends on whether significant populations occupy non-transitional intertidal areas x

Intertidal benthic feeders Numenius arquata Curlew common amp widespread all year wintering amp on migration already monitored Yes - WeBS dont know No No No No No possibly Depends on whether significant populations occupy non-transitional intertidal areas x

Intertidal benthic feeders Tringa totanus Redshank common amp widespread all year wintering amp on migration already monitored Yes - WeBS dont know No No No No No possibly Depends on whether significant populations occupy non-transitional intertidal areas x

Intertidal benthic feeders Charadrius hiaticula Ringed plover common amp widespread all year wintering amp on migration already monitored Yes - WeBS dont know No No No No No possibly Depends on whether significant populations occupy non-transitional intertidal areas x

Offshore pelagic feeders Morus bassanus Northern gannet fishing discards common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP no No Yes Yes No No No x x x x

Offshore pelagic feeders Alca torda Razorbill x Fishing competition for food common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes x

Offshore pelagic feeders Uria aalge Common Guillemot Fishing competition for food common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes x

Offshore surface feeders Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope x rare on migration NA NA NA NA No No No No No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Calonectris diomedea Corys Shearwater x fishing bycatch uncommon amp local wintering amp on migration NA NA NA NA No Yes Yes No No No moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) x x x

Offshore surface feeders Hydrobates pelagicus European Storm-petrel x Introduced non-native predators uncommon amp widespread breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP no No Yes No No No No x x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leachs Storm-petrel x Introduced non-native predators uncommon amp local breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP no No Yes No No No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus mauretanicus Balearic shearwater x x fishing bycatch uncommon amp local wintering amp on migration wintering amp on migration possible No dont know No Yes Yes No No No moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) x x

Offshore surface feeders Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake x Fishing bycatch amp competition for food common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Larus fuscus intermediusgraellsii Lesser black-backed gull fishing discards common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes No No No Yes x x x

Offshore surface feeders Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar fishing discards amp bycatch common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes No No No Yes x

Offshore surface feeders Larus marinus Great Black-backed Gull fishing discards uncommon amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP yes No Yes Yes No No Yes x

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus gravis Great Shearwater Fishing bycatch uncommon amp widespread on migration NA NA No NA No Yes Yes No No No Some accidental capture outwith OSPAR region x x x

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus griseus Sooty Shearwater Fishing bycatch uncommon amp widespread on migration NA NA No NA No Yes Yes No No No Some accidental capture outwith OSPAR region x x

Offshore surface feeders Oceanites oceanicus Wilsons Storm-petrel rare on migration NA NA No NA No No No No No No x x x

Offshore surface feeders Phalaropus fulicarius Grey Phalarope uncommon amp widespread on migration NA NA No NA No No No No No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Stercorarius pomarinus Pomarine Skua Fishing discards uncommon amp widespread on migration NA NA No NA No Yes Yes No No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Stercorarius longicaudus Long-tailed Skua uncommon amp widespread on migration NA NA No NA No No Yes No No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Stercorarius skua Great Skua Fishing discards competition for food uncommon amp local breeding breeding already monitored Yes - SMP No No Yes Yes No No Yes x x x x

Inshoreoffshore surface feeders Xema sabini Sabines Gull uncommon amp widespread on migration NA NA No NA No No No No No No x x x

Offshore surface feeders Larus glaucoides Iceland Gull Fishing discards uncommon amp widespread wintering NA NA No NA No Yes Yes No No No x x x

Offshore surface feeders Larus hyperboreus Glaucous Gull Fishing discards uncommon amp widespread wintering NA NA No NA No Yes Yes No No No x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Cepphus grylle Black Guillemot Fishing bycatch introduced non-native predators common amp widespread all year breeding already monitored Yes - SMP No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Vulnerable to entanglement and fishery induced change to prey fish stock levels Also to ground predators (mink rats and feral cats) x x x

Reptiles

no species suitable as indicators due to lack of regular monitoring data

Fish

Diadromous bony fish Acipenser sturio Sturgeon yes

Diadromous bony fish Alosa alosa Allis shad yes - pollution and migrational barriers no no yes no Yes angling catch and release fisheries and mortalities no yes Under the current Texel-Faial criteria this species is considered to be globally important rare sensitive and in decline It is listed in the Habitats Directive under Annex II and V and under the Bern Convention under Annex III Its IUCN Red List status relative to its vulnerability to extinction is not clear and it is classified as data deficient (DD) yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Alosa fallax Twaite shad yes - pollution and migrational barriers No no yes no Yes angling catch and release fisheries and mortalities no yes it is listed in the Habitats Directive under Annex II and V and under the Bern Convention under Annex III Its IUCN Red List status relative to its vulnerability to extinction is not clear and it is classified as data deficient (DD) yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus Houting no yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Lampetra fluviatilis (except the Finnish and Swedish populations) River lamprey yes - pollution and migrational barriers yes no yes yes no no yes River lamprey have no formal Texel-Faial category assigned to date and are not listed in either Annex II and V of the Habitats directive They are listed as Least ConcernNear Threatened (LCNT) in the IUCN Red List suggesting that although there is no immediate threat of extinction of the species there may be some factors causing some concern in the mid-term to longer term yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Petromyzon marinus (FFH Annex II except the Swedish populations) Sea lamprey yes - pollution and migrational barriers Yes no yes yes no no yes Sea lamprey are classified under the Texel-Faial system as being of global importance sensitive and in decline They are only listed in Annex II but not Annex V of the Habitats directive while they are included under Annex III of the Bern Convention They are not classified in the IUCN Red List yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Salmo salar Salmon directed fishing yes no yes yes target no yes Declining marine survival is a cause for concern internationally yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Osmerus eperlanus Smelts yes pollution yes no yes no no no The smelt is not currently classified under the Texel-Faial criteria and is not included under Annex II and V of the Habitats Directive of Annex III of the Bern Convention It is classified under Data Deficient in the IUCN Red list Overexploitation erection of barriers and water quality deterioration threaten many European smelt populations and local populations are easily driven to extinction yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Salmo trutta trutta Sea trout directed fishing yes no yes no yes no yes yes yes

Diadromous bony fish Anguilla anguilla European eel x directed fishing yes Yes yes no yes target no yes yes yes

Demersal bony fish Gadus morhua - populations in the OSPAR regions II and III[2] Cod x targetbycatch Yes No No x x

Pelagic bony fish Thunnus thynnus Bluefin tuna x directed fishing yes but fisheries dependant no Yes Yes No x

Pelagic bony fish Thunnus alalunga Albacore tuna directed fishing yes but fisheries dependant no Yes yes No X

Pelagic bony fish Capros aper Boarfish developing fisherybycatch yes yes (acoustic surveysIBTS) Yes no No X

Pelagic bony fish Sardina pilchardus Sardines directed fishingbycatch yes yes (acoustic surveysIBTS) yes Yes no No X

Pelagic bony fish Sprattus spratus Sprat directed fishingbycatch yes yes (acoustic surveysIBTS) yes yes no No yes important food web component X

Pelagic bony fish Clupea harengus Herring- directed fishing yes yes (acoustic surveysIBTS) yes yes no No x

Pelagic bony fish Micromesistius poutassou Blue whiting directed fishing yes yes (acoustic surveysIBTS) yes yes no No yes important in coupling demersal and pelagic food webs x

Pelagic bony fish Scomber scombrus Mackerel directed fishing yes yes (egg surveyIBTS) yes yes no No x

Pelagic bony fish Trachurus trachurus Horse Mackerel directed fishing yes yes (egg surveyIBTS) yes yes no No x

Deep sea bony fish Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange roughy x targetbycatch Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose grenadier target yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Aphanopus carbo Black scabbard target yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard bycatchdiscarding yes yes (IBTS and DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Alepocephalus bairdii Bairds Smoothhead bycatchdicarding yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Chimera sp Rabbit fish bycatchdicarding high biological vulnerablility yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Epigonus telescopus Bullseye bycatchdiscarding yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Argentina silus Greater Argentine target yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Molva dypterigia Blue ling target yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Mora moro Common mora bycatchdiscarding yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Antimora rostrata Blue antimora bycatchdiscarding yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Helicolenus dactylopterus Bluemouth bycatchdiscarding yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Conger conger Conger eel bycatchdiscarding yes yes (IBTS and DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Hydrolagus mirabilis Large-eyed rabbit bycatchdiscarding yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Rhinochimaera atlantica Straightnoserabbitfish bycatchdiscarding yes yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Alepocephalus rostratus Rissossmoothhead bycatchdiscarding yes (DWS subject to funding) no Yes No x

Demersal bony fish Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Merlangius merlangus Whiting target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Merluccius merluccius Hake target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Trisopterus esmarki Norway pout discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Trisopterus minutus Poor Cod discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Eutrigla gurnardus Grey Gurnard discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Limanda limanda Dab discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Hippoglossoides platessoides Long Rough Dab discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Glyptocephalus cynoglossus witch bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Microstomus kitt lemon sole bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Callionymus Lyra common dragon net discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Pleuronectes platessa common plaice bycatch amp discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no bycatch amp discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis megrim target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Aspitrigla cuculus Red Gurnard bycatch discard yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no bycatch discard No no No x

Demersal bony fish Zeus faber John Dory bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Pollachius virens Saithe target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Lepidorhombus boscii Four Spot Megrim bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Lophius piscatorius Anglerfish target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Solea solea Sole target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Lophius budegassa Black Bellied Anglerfish target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal bony fish Molva molva Ling target amp bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF no target amp bycatch No no No x

Demersal elasmobranchs Dipturus batis (synonym Raja batis) Common skate x bycatch yes (IBTS) no Yes No No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Raja clavata Thornback skate ray x targetbycatch yes (IBTS) no Yes No No x x

yes (IBTS)

Demersal elasmobranchs Raja montagui (synonym Dipturus montagui) Spotted ray x targetbycatch yes (IBTS) no Yes No No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Raja undulata targetbycatch no yes (IBTS) no

Demersal elasmobranchs Scyliorhinus canicula lesser spotted dogfish targetbycatch yes yes (IBTS) no

Demersal elasmobranchs Leucoraja naevus Cuckoo Ray targetbycatch yes yes (IBTS) no

Demersal elasmobranchs Raja brachyura Blonde Ray targetbycatch yes (IBTS) no

Demersal elasmobranchs Rostroraja alba White skate x bycatch yes (IBTS) no Yes No No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Squalus acanthias [Northeast Atlantic] spurdog x bycatch yes yes (IBTS) no Yes Yes No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Squatina squatina Angel shark x bycatch yes (IBTS) no Yes Yes No x

Pelagic elasmobranchs Lamna nasus Porbeagle x bycatch No- will need to be established no Yes Yes No x x

Pelagic elasmobranchs Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark x x bycatch sightings and bycatch monitoring no Yes No No x x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centrophorus granulosus Gulper shark x bycatch yes (subject to funding) no Yes Yes No x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale gulper shark x bycatch yes (subject to funding) no Yes Yes No x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centroscymnus coelolepis Portuguese dogfish x bycatch yes (subject to funding) no Yes Yes No x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Deania calcea Birdbeak dogfish x bycatchdicarding yes yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Galeus melastomus Blackmouth dogfish bycatchdicarding yes yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centroscymnus crepidater Longnose velvet dogfish bycatchdicarding yes yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centroscyllium fabricii Black dogfish bycatchdicarding no yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No

Deep sea elasmobranchs Dalatias licha Kitefin shark bycatchdicarding no yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No

Deep sea elasmobranchs Etmopterus princeps Greater lantern shark bycatchdicarding no yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No

Deep sea elasmobranchs Etmopterus spinax Velvet belly bycatchdicarding no yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No

Deep sea elasmobranchs Hexanchus griseus Six-gilled shark bycatchdicarding no yes (subject to funding) no Yes yes No No

Invertebrates

Other Arctica islandica Ocean quahog x x

Other Megabalanus azoricus Azorean barnacle x

Other Nucella lapillus Dog whelk x x

Other Ostrea edulis Flat oyster x x

Other Patella ulyssiponensis aspera Azorean limpet x

Cephalopds LOLIGO FORBESI NORTHERN SQUID bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF yes bycatch no no no x

Cephalopds ILLEX COINDETII SOUTHERN SHORTFIN SQUID bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF yes bycatch no no no x

Cephalopds TODAROPSIS EBLANAE NULL bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF yes bycatch no no no x

Cephalopds TODARODES SAGITTATUS FLYING SQUID bycatch yes yes (IBTS) amp DCF yes bycatch no no no x

in pink Functional groups that are so far underrepresented in this list









































































INVERTEBRATES






BIRDS










FISH



















Salmo salar Salmon




REPTILES



MAMMALS






Phocidae



Cetacea

Phocoena phocoena X


Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X

Fish

Petromyzontidae



Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Clupeidae

Alosa spp (V) X

Coregonidae


Mammals

CETACEA X

All species X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X


Dermochelyidae


Fish

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Coregonidae


Cyprinidae


Cyprinodontidae




Mammals

Baleen whales Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale x x hunted in some regions No Yes Yes No No x

Baleen whales Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale x x No Yes No No x x x

Baleen whales Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale x x x x x ship strike and entanglement No Yes No No

Baleen whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata Common minke whale x x hunting in some regions entanglement possibly vessel strike No Yes Yes No No x x x x

Baleen whales Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale x x x x vessel strike entanglement No Yes Yes No No x occassional sighting x x

Baleen whales Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale x x x x

Baleen whales Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale x x x x No Yes No No Some evidence of recovery for this species following historic depletion due to hunting x

Toothed whales Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise x (in II+III only) x x x x x (North Sea only) sensitivity to fisheries bycatch well documented sensitivity to noise including some specific human becoming better documented sensitivity to chemical contaminants (eg PCBs) less well documented disturbance possibly vessel strike Commonest marine mammal in North Sea and in Celtic Seas costly to monitor abundance and distribution at a population scale variance in estimates using current monitoring techniques rather high thus making trend detection relatively low-powered Monitoring of bycatch and contaminant concentrations in corpses relatively easy No Yes Yes No No The only cetacean that occurs regularly throughout the North Sea Its exact range does vary at a smaller scale ndash we have evidence on a decadal scale and for some parts of the sea variance on an annual scale x x x

Toothed whales Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin x x x

Toothed whales Grampus griseus Rissos dolphin x x x x (North Sea only)

Toothed whales Tursiops truncatus Common bottlenose dolphin x x x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike No Yes Yes No No Have been reported from northern Norway and Iceland but Moray Firth population considered most northerly residents x x x x

Toothed whales Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin x x x


Toothed whales Kogia breviceps Pygmy sperm whale x yes ocassional sightings

Toothed whales Lagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic white-sided dolphin x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike No Yes Yes No No sub-Arctic x x

Toothed whales Lagenorhynchus albirostris White-beaked dolphin x x x (North Sea only) bycatch pollution (eg PCBs) disturbance possibly vessel strike No Yes Yes No No x x x x

Toothed whales Lagenodelphis hosie Frasers dolphin x yes yes x

Toothed whales Pseudorca carssidens False killer whale x x x

Toothed whales Orcinus orca Killer whale x x x x pollution (ASCOBANS have just funded a project to look at this) No Yes Yes No No x x x x x

Toothed whales Delphinapterus leucas Beluga x pollution in western North Atlantic No Yes Yes No No Beluga and narwhal have never been mentioned at ASCOBANS x

Toothed whales Monodon monoceros Narwhal x No Yes No No x

Toothed whales Mesoplodon bidens Sowerbys beaked whale x x x noise disturbance No Yes Yes No No Arctic and off the continental shelf in NE Atlantic x x x

Toothed whales Mesoplodon densirostris Blainvilles beaked whale x x x

Toothed whales Ziphius cavirostris Cuviers beaked whale x x x

Toothed whales Hyperoodon ampullatus Northern bottlenose whale x x x x noise disturbance No Yes Yes No No Arctic and off the continental shelf in NE Atlantic x

Toothed whales Globicephala melas Long-finned pilot whale x x x x (North Sea only) hunted in some regions entanglement No Yes Yes No No sub-Arctic x x x

Toothed whales Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale x x x x

Seals Halichoerus grypus Grey seal x hunted in some regions outside EU shot as fisheryaquaculture protection bycatch pollution effects empirically demonstrated Common in northern North Sea and in NW UK but globally a relatively rare seal Virtually all EU populations already monitored using aerial survey of pups EcoQO developed and adopted by OSPAR No Yes Yes No No Why the focus on Annex II All species of seal are covered if annexes IV and V are also taken into account x x x

Seals Phoca vitulina Harbour seal x x hunted in some regions outside EU shot as fisheryaquaculture protection bycatch pollution effects empirically demonstrated Common in North Sea and in western UK Many EU populations already monitored using aerial survey of adult haul outs EcoQO developed and adopted by OSPAR Response to seal epizootic rapid Yes Yes No No x x x x

Seals Monachus monachus Mediterranean monk seal x x x Added as present in southern OSPAR area as well as in Mediterranean x

Ice-dwelling mammals

Birds

Offshore pelagic feeders Uria aalge (Iberian population) Iberian guillemot x x Oil spills No Yes Yes No Yes this population may be extinct

Offshore pelagic feeders Uria lomvia Thick-billed murre x Hunting No Yes Yes No Yes x

Offshore pelagic feeders Morus bassanus Northern gannet fishing discards No Yes Yes No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope x No No No No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Bulweria bulwerii Bulwers Petrel x No No No No No x x

Offshore surface feeders Calonectris diomedea Corys Shearwater x fishing bycatch No Yes Yes No No moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) x x x

Offshore surface feeders Hydrobates pelagicus European Storm-petrel x No No No No No x x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Oceanodroma castro Madeiran Storm-petrel x No No No No No x x

Offshore surface feeders Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leachs Storm-petrel x No No No No No x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Pagophila eburnea Ivory gull x No No No No No x

Offshore surface feeders Pelagodroma marina White-faced Storm-petrel x No No No No No x

Offshore surface feeders Pterodroma feae Feas Petrel x No No No No No x

Offshore surface feeders Pterodroma madeira Zinos Petrel x No No No No No x

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus assimilis baroli Little shearwater x x No No Yes No No x x

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus mauretanicus Balearic shearwater x x fishing bycatch No Yes Yes No No moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) x x

Offshore surface feeders Puffinus yelkouan Yelkouan Shearwater x fishing bycatch No Yes Yes No No moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) x

Offshore surface feeders Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake x Fishing bycatch amp competition for food No Yes Yes No Yes moderate to high frequency of capture by fisheries (ICES WGSE 2008) x x x x

Offshore surface feeders Larus fuscus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull x fishing discards No Yes No No No x

Offshore surface feeders Larus fuscus intermediusgraellsii Lesser black-backed gull fishing discards No Yes No No No x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia arctica Black-throated diver x No No Yes No Yes x x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia immer Great Northern diver x No No Yes No Yes x x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Gavia stellata Red-throated diver x shipping amp offshore renewables No Yes Yes No Yes x x x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Mergus albellus (Mergellus albellus) Smew x No No Yes No No x x

Inshore pelagic feeders Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe x No No Yes No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Gelochelidon nilotica (Sterna nilotica) Gull-billed Tern x No No Yes No No x

Inshore surface feeders Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean Gull x No No No No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Chlidonias hybridus Whiskered Tern x No No Yes No No x

Inshore surface feeders Chlidonias niger Black Tern x x No No Yes No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Larus minutus Little Gull x No No No No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna albifrons Little Tern x x No No Yes No No x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna caspia Caspian Tern x No No Yes No Yes x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna dougallii Roseate tern x x x Hunting No Yes Yes No Yes Hunting occurs outside OSPAR Maritime region x x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna hirundo Common tern x x No No Yes No Yes x x x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern x x No No Yes No Yes x x x x

Inshore surface feeders Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern x Hunting No Yes Yes No Yes Hunting occurs outside OSPAR Maritime region x x x

x

Inshore benthic feeders Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii European Shag x No No Yes No Yes x

Intertidal benthic feeders Anser albifrons flavirostris Greenland white-fronted goose x x Hunting No Yes No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Anser erythropus Lesser White-fronted Goose x x x Hunting No Yes No No No

Intertidal benthic feeders Branta leucopsis Barnacle Goose x Hunting No Yes No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Branta ruficollis Red-breasted Goose x x Hunting No Yes No No No

Intertidal benthic feeders Calidris alpina schinzii Dunlin x No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Charadrius alexandrinus Kentish Plover x No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Cygnus bewickii Bewicks Swan x No No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan x No No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt x No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit x No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Numenius tenuirostris Slender-billed Curlew x No No No No No

Intertidal benthic feeders Philomachus pugnax Ruff x No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Pluvialis apricaria Golden plover x No No No No No x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Recurvirostra avosetta Pied avocet x No No No No No x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper x No No No No No x x x x x

Intertidal benthic feeders Xenus cinereus (Tringa cinerea) Terek Sandpiper x No No No No No

Subtidal benthic feeders Polysticta stelleri Stellers eider x x No No No No No x

Coastal top predator Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon x x Persecution No Yes Yes No No x x x x

Coastal top predator Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle x Persecutionrenewables No Yes Yes No No x x x

Reptiles

Turtles Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle x x x x x by-catch entanglement No Yes No No Yes nesting in these spp occurs in the Med hence on AnnexII but no nesting in North East Atlantic where mainly juveniles are encountered x x

Turtles Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle x x x x by-catch entanglement No Yes No No No nesting in these spp occurs in the Med hence on AnnexII but no nesting in North East Atlantic where mainly juveniles are encountered x x

Turtles Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle x x x x entanglement by-catch pollution (plastic floatsome ingestion) No Yes No No No adults of this species migrate throughout the North Atlantic but no nesting occurs in EU waters x x x x

Turtles Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle x x x by-catch entanglement No Yes No No No juveniles are encountered in North Atlantic no nesting in EU waters x x

Turtles Lepidochelys kempii Kemps Ridley x x x

Fish

Diadromous bony fish Acipenser sturio Sturgeon x x x x x No No Yes Mainly freshwater impacts x x

Diadromous bony fish Alosa alosa Allis shad x x No No No Mainly freshwater impacts x x

Diadromous bony fish Alosa fallax Twaite shad x No No No Mainly freshwater impacts x x

Diadromous bony fish Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus Houting x x x No No No Mainly freshwater impacts x x

Diadromous bony fish Lampetra fluviatilis (except the Finnish and Swedish populations) River lamprey x No No No Mainly freshwater impacts x x

Diadromous bony fish Petromyzon marinus (FFH Annex II except the Swedish populations) Sea lamprey x x No No No Mainly freshwater impacts x x

Diadromous bony fish Salmo salar Salmon x No No Yes x x

Diadromous bony fish Anguilla anguilla European eel x directed fishing Yes No Yes x x


Demersal bony fish Hippocampus guttulatus (synonym Hippocampus ramulosus) Long-snouted seahorse x No No No x x

Demersal bony fish Hippocampus hippocampus Short-snouted seahorse x No No No x x

Pelagic bony fish Thunnus thynnus Bluefin tuna x directed fishing Yes Yes No x

Deep sea bony fish Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange roughy x targetbycatch Yes No No x

Demersal elasmobranchs Dipturus batis (synonym Raja batis) Common skate x bycatch Yes No No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Raja clavata Thornback skate ray x targetbycatch Yes No No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Raja montagui (synonym Dipturus montagui) Spotted ray x targetbycatch Yes No No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Rostroraja alba White skate x bycatch Yes No No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Squalus acanthias [Northeast Atlantic] spurdog x bycatch Yes Yes No x x

Demersal elasmobranchs Squatina squatina Angel shark x bycatch Yes Yes No x

Pelagic elasmobranchs Lamna nasus Porbeagle x bycatch Yes Yes No x x

Pelagic elasmobranchs Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark x x bycatch Yes No No x x

Pelagic elasmobranchs Carcharodon carcharias Great White Shark x x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centrophorus granulosus Gulper shark x bycatch Yes Yes No x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale gulper shark x bycatch Yes Yes No x

Deep sea elasmobranchs Centroscymnus coelolepis Portuguese dogfish x bycatch Yes Yes No x

Invertebrates






Coastalshelf pelagic cephalopods

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods


Seabed habitats to be assessed

Habitat[1] Source Relationship to EUNIS (v200711) habitat classes Relationship to predominant habitat Comments Arctic North Sea Celtic Seas Biscay Iberia Macaronesia

Littoral rock and biogenic reef TG1 predominant habitat A1 A27 A283 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Reefs Habitats Directive Annex I A1 (except A144) + A27 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Habitats Directive Annex I A144 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Littoral chalk communities OSPAR List A1126 A12143 A1441 amp others Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments OSPAR List A27211 A27212 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Nucella lapillus (dog whelk) OSPAR List species Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this species can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Patella aspera (Azorean limpet) OSPAR List species Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this species can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread littoral rock and biogenic reef habitats EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) littoral rock and biogenic reef habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Littoral sediment TG1 predominant habitat A2 (except A27 A283) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Annual vegetation of drift lines Habitats Directive Annex I B11 B21 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand Habitats Directive Annex I A251B A2551 A2552 A2553 A2558 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) Habitats Directive Annex I A2554 A2555 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) Habitats Directive Annex I A2521 A2531 A2535 A2536 A2537 A2538 A253A A253B A2541 A2542 A2545 A2546 A2547 A2548 A2556 A2557 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi) Habitats Directive Annex I A2526 A2527 A2528 A2529 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide Habitats Directive Annex I A22 A23 A26 A285 A286 A55331 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Intertidal mudflats OSPAR List A23 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Zostera beds OSPAR List A2611 A2612 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread littoral sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) littoral sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef TG1 predominant habitat A3 + circalittoral habitats in A4 infralittoral amp circalittoral biogenic reefs in A56 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Reefs Habitats Directive Annex I A3 (except A371 A374) A4 (except A471) Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Habitats Directive Annex I A371 A374 A471 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Sabellaria spinulosa reefs OSPAR List A422 A6611 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Modiolus modiolus beds OSPAR List A5621 A5622 A5623 A5624 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur


Megabalanus azoricus (Azorean barnacle) OSPAR List species Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this species can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR Habitats in A51 (except A515) and relevant types in A55 A57 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Maerl beds OSPAR List A551 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Phymatolithon calcareum (maerl) Habitats Directive Annex V species Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this species can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Lithothamnium corallioides (maerl) Habitats Directive Annex V species Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this species can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread shallow sublittoral coarse sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shallow sublittoral coarse sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shallow sublittoral sand TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR Habitats in A52 (except A527) and relevant types in A55 A57 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time Habitats Directive Annex I May include habitats in A511 A512 A513 A514 A521 A522 A523 A524 A525 A526 A551 A553 Confined to Landscape type (topographic feature) - Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this habitat can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which it occurs

Arctica islandica (Ocean quahog) OSPAR List species Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this species can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur


Cymodocea meadows OSPAR List A5531 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread shallow sublittoral sand habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shallow sublittoral sand habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shallow sublittoral mud TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR Habitats in A53 (except A537) and relevant types in A55 A57 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities OSPAR List A5361 A5362 A5363 Occurs within several Landscape type (topographic feature) - Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this habitat can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which it occurs

(Other) widespread shallow sublittoral mud habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shallow sublittoral mud habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR Habitats in A54 (except A545) and relevant types in A55 A57 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Ostrea edulis beds OSPAR List A5435 Confined to Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Ostrea edulis (Native or flat oyster) OSPAR List species Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this species can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread shallow sublittoral mixed sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shallow sublittoral mixed sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef TG1 predominant habitat Deep circalittoral habitats in A4 amp A56 (only a few described so far) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Reefs Habitats Directive Annex I Deep circalittoral habitats in A4 and A56 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Lophelia pertusa reefs OSPAR List A5631 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Coral Gardens OSPAR List Not yet defined Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shelf sublittoral coarse sediment TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR A515 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Coral Gardens OSPAR List Not yet defined Occurs within several Need to confirm its occurrence within this predominant habitat - Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this habitat can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which it occurs

(Other) widespread shelf sublittoral coarse sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shelf sublittoral coarse sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shelf sublittoral sand TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR A527 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Widespread shelf sublittoral sand habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

Shelf sublittoral sand habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shelf sublittoral mud TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR A537 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities OSPAR List A5361 A5362 A5363 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread shelf sublittoral mud habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) shelf sublittoral mud habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Shelf sublittoral mixed sediment TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR A545 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Widespread shelf sublittoral mixed sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

Shelf sublittoral mixed sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Bathyal (slopeupper) rock and biogenic reef TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR A61 A62 A66 (bathyal zone from 200-1100m in Atlantic) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Reefs Habitats Directive Annex I A61 (bathyal habitats) Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Lophelia pertusa reefs OSPAR List A6611 (bathyal) Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur


Deep-sea sponge aggregations OSPAR List A662 Occurs within several Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

(Other) widespread bathyal (slopeupper) rock and biogenic reef habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) bathyal (slopeupper) rock and biogenic reef habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Bathyal (slopeupper) sediment TG1 predominant habitat A63+A64+A65 (bathyal zone from 200-1100m in Atlantic) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat


Deep-sea sponge aggregations OSPAR List A662 Occurs within several Need to confirm its occurrence within this predominant habitat - Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this habitat can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which it occurs

(Other) widespread bathyal (slopeupper) sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) bathyal (slopeupper) sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Bathyal (midlower) rock and biogenic reef TG1 predominant habitat subdivided by OSPAR A61 A62 A66 (bathyal zone from 1100-2700m in Atlantic) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat





(Other) widespread bathyal (midlower) rock and biogenic reef habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) bathyal (midlower) rock and biogenic reef habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Bathyal (midlower) sediment TG1 predominant habitat A63+A64+A65 (bathyal zone from 1100-2700m in Atlantic) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat



(Other) widespread bathyal (midlower) sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) bathyal (midlower) sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Abyssal rock and biogenic reef TG1 predominant habitat A61 A62 A66 (abyssal zone below 2700m in Atlantic) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Reefs Habitats Directive Annex I A61 (abyssal habitats) Occurs within several Need to confirm its occurrence within this predominant habitat - Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this habitat can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which it occurs

Lophelia pertusa reefs OSPAR List A6611 (abyssal) Occurs within several Need to confirm its occurrence within this predominant habitat - Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessment of this habitat can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which it occurs



(Other) widespread abyssal rock and biogenic reef habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

(Other) abyssal rock and biogenic reef habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Abyssal sediment TG1 predominant habitat A63+A64+A65 (abyssal zone below 2700m in Atlantic) Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD Assessments of listed habitats habitats which merit a particular reference and widespread habitats (where identified) can all contribute to the overall assessment of the TG1 predominant habitat

Widespread abyssal sediment habitats where appropriate EUNIS Varies Confined to Assessment of these widespread habitats can contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur A direct assessment of the widespread habitats (where defined and identified) may be made at the discretion of Contracting Parties

Abyssal sediment habitats which merit a particular reference where appropriate (see Annex III Table 1) EUNIS Other nationally listed habitats Varies Confined to Direct assessment required under MSFD Assessment of these habitats can also contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type within which they occur

Pelagic habitats TG1 realm

Low salinity water (Baltic Sea) TG1 predominant habitat EUNIS pelagic classification not structured in suitable way for purpose here Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Reduced salinity water (Black Sea) TG1 predominant habitat Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Estuarine water TG1 predominant habitat Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD May all fall within WFD Transitional Waters

Coastal water TG1 predominant habitat Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Shelf water TG1 predominant habitat Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Oceanic water TG1 predominant habitat Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Ice habitats TG1 realm

Ice-associated habitats TG1 predominant habitat A8 Equals Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Other habitats TG1 landscape amp other types

Estuaries Habitats Directive Annex I Various Contains several Landscape type (physiographic feature) Direct assessment of status required under MSFD May all fall within WFD Transitional Waters

Large shallow inlets and bays Habitats Directive Annex I Various Contains several Landscape type (physiographic feature) Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Coastal lagoons Habitats Directive Annex I Various Contains several Landscape type (physiographic feature) Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Submarine structures made by leaking gases Habitats Directive Annex I A373 A473 A571 A69 Occurs within several Localised habitat occurs within several predominant types Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Oceanic ridges with hydrothermal ventsfields OSPAR List A694 Occurs within several Localised habitat occurs within several predominant types Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Carbonate mounds OSPAR List A675 Contains several Landscape type (physiographic feature) Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

Seamounts OSPAR List A672 Contains several Landscape type (physiographic feature) Direct assessment of status required under MSFD

[1] Includes benthic listed species whose assessment could contribute to the assessment of the predominant habitat type in which it occurs



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ADVICE MANUAL 7

PART I PRINCIPLES 7

PART II APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO BIODIVERSITY 10 1 BACKGROUND 22

11 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ADVICE MANUAL 22

12 POLICY CONTEXT 23 121 Requirements of the Directive 23 122 Requirements for determining GES and establishing environmental targets and indicators 23 123 The role of OSPAR 24 124 Time table for implementation 25

13 KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE ADVICE MANUAL 25

14 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT 26 PART I PRINCIPLES 27 2 INTRODUCTION 27

21 WHAT IS GES 27

22 TALKING A COMMON LANGUAGE 27

23 OVERVIEW OF THE BIODIVERSITY DESCRIPTORS 28

24 RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER DESCRIPTORS 29

25 CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TARGETS FOR ALL DESCRIPTORS 30

26 ELEMENTS FOR DETERMINING GES 30 261 Assessment areas and components 30 262 Determining GES and target-setting 30 263 Characteristics of an effective indicator 32 264 Setting a baseline 32

3 APPROACHES TO DETERMINING GES 35

31 UNDERSTANDING GES FOR BIODIVERSITY 35 311 GES in a dynamic ecosystem and changing climate 36

32 MAKING USE OF EXISTING BIODIVERSITY TARGETS AND INDICATORS 37 321 OSPAR ecological quality objectives 38

33 APPROACHES FOR SETTING TARGETS AND BASELINES FOR NEW INDICATORS 38 331 Baseline-setting approaches 38 332 Target-setting approaches 42 333 Coordinated selection of species and habitats 45


4
















61 INTRODUCTION 97












74 D4 FOOD WEBS 107




82 TERMINOLOGY 117






6
















8















Assessment scales


Box 1












10




Habitats











Species







Pressure targets




12


















bull Cephalopods

bull Reptiles




14






Descriptor 1


































































16

Descriptor 2












Descriptor 4

Criterion Indicator



















Descriptor 6

Criterion Indicator


























18







dec






141






142


Habitat area




151




151




161





161




161 D6





161




161 D5 D6













163 D5 D6 D7 D8






151 16 62






151 16 62





16 624


dec




111





112 121





121




121





131









161 421





161 421


20


Dec





111





112





121 431



131 411




131 411




131





131 2





171


Dec








111










112








121 131







131 43





131 43


Dec




211



211


22

1 Background

















12 Policy context









24




































26









Agreement 2010-3)



















28















Loss

of

rang

e

Occasional trawling

Moderate trawling


infrastructure)

Intense trawling


Nutrient enrichment



Eutrophication

Cum

ulat

ive

pres

sure

s -

impa

ctD5D7

Hydrological change

D8

D6

Invasive

species

D2

Loss

of

rang

e

Occasional trawling

Moderate trawling


infrastructure)

Intense trawling


Nutrient enrichment



Eutrophication

Cum

ulat

ive

pres

sure

s -

impa

ctD5D7

Hydrological change

D8

D6

Invasive

species

D2





30





















32















34



















36






Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density
















Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density











Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density











habitat community

and area


low density
































38

























40























10(10)430


42


































44





















46





















48















50


411 Seabed habitats






















i ChannelLa Manche




v Kattegat




52



Northern North Sea


Kattegat



















(1) 1151













54





















56



























58









d Summary















60

Conclusions

General








Sediment habitats






















62



Physical damage















ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration



















64


ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration


15 Habitat extent

Habitat area (151)


Habitat area





15 Habitat extent

Habitat area (151)


Habitat area






15 Habitat extent


-



















ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration

(161) sufficient

























66


ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration




D5 D6 D7 D8




Using HD monitoring






151 16 62









151 16 62




Reference area





ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration











68













521 Cetaceans












70



Pressure targets







522 Seals











Pressure targets



523 Reptiles46




State targets




72




Fisheries bycatch






Marine litter




























74












ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4














76


ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4




None

















ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4




NA

12 Population size
















78


ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4







Current population


No single pressure











ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4






Decreasing trend






80

53 Birds


















Conclusions








Population Size







82













Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4








No single pressure








84


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4








No single pressure










Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4


12 Population size






No single pressure








86


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4


















No single pressure





Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4












Biological pressure











Biological pressure




88


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4











No single pressure





Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4



90

































92



Conclusions

























94





Adviceconsideration

Feasibility4







No single pressure










No single pressure











12 Population size






No single pressure






Biological pressure









96



421 Large fish






No single pressure






No single pressure






No single pressure

















98






























100
















102



















ParameterMetric1


Pressure3

Adviceconsideration





Or



Not specified

Not specified



104



In development







106














108





Advice

consideration

Feasibility

















Advice

consideration

Feasibility








Fish


Fish


Fish


Fish


Fish

Removal of species

Fish



110



Advice

consideration

Feasibility






Removal of species




Mammalsreptiles


Mammalsreptiles


Mammalsreptiles

Current population

Mammalsreptiles


Fishing

Mammalsreptiles






Advice

consideration

Feasibility

differences


Decreasing trend



Fishing


Fish


Fish


Fish



Fish


Seabirds


Seabirds


Seabirds


Seabirds


No single pressure

Seabirds


112



Advice

consideration

Feasibility



options 75 and 90









No single pressure







Advice

consideration

Feasibility

















NA

114



Advice

consideration

Feasibility



NA




















116















Background






118

List of terms



lsquoCriterionrsquo





lsquoIndicatorrsquo
























120

lsquoIndexrsquo






lsquoBaselinersquo


lsquoPressurersquo














122



GES EcoQOs 11 21 22 31 32 33 34 35 41 51 52 71 81 9 (1-5)

1 Biodiversity 11

12

13

12 13 12

X X



4 Food webs 43 43 43 421


521-4

531-2




















124






H1





H2






H3


X







H4


X



H5


X



P1



126






P2












P3







P4





P5




Nutrient enrichment

P6



128


Organic enrichment

P7




Deoxygenation P8


X



L1





L2








D1









D3


X

130




D4


























Marine litter



O2


X



O3



132




X



O5


X



O6


X



X



B2


X







B3





B4





B5





B6



134























EUR 24334 EN-2010

136

























Habitats list



OSPAR Region II


OSPAR Region III





General



ReadMe


Sheet1


Sheet3

barbara
File Attachment

MSFD Species



OSPAR List


ASCOBANS

barbara
File Attachment

MSFD Species



OSPAR List


ASCOBANS

barbara
File Attachment

listed

not listed

barbara
File Attachment

138









Marine Birds
















Marine Mammals


140


Reptiles



141






Comment on baseline


Comment on target



Aii


1



Aii


1


NA 3


142



Comment on baseline


Comment on target


C





Aii


1






143


Cf Section 45 Birds





Comment on target





3




na










B)


3


144





Comment on baseline












1 or 2






145




Comment on baseline







2




1 or 2


146



Comment on baseline


relevant



1


147

OSPAR Commission V

Executive summary


Part I Principles

1 Background


12 Policy context







PART I Principles

2 Introduction

21 What is GES






















4 Habitats

41 Introduction

411 Seabed habitats
















5 Species




521 Cetaceans

522 Seals

523 Reptiles


53 Birds








61 Introduction












71 D1 Biodiversity



74 D4 Food webs






Mammals












Birds
























Fish






















































































































































Mammals
































Birds























































Reptiles






Fishes


































































































INVERTEBRATES






BIRDS










FISH



















Salmo salar Salmon




REPTILES



MAMMALS






Phocidae



Cetacea

Phocoena phocoena X


Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X

Fish

Petromyzontidae



Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Clupeidae

Alosa spp (V) X

Coregonidae


Mammals

CETACEA X

All species X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X


Dermochelyidae


Fish

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Coregonidae


Cyprinidae


Cyprinodontidae




Mammals





Birds



































































Reptiles


Fish




























































yes (IBTS)






















Invertebrates



















































































INVERTEBRATES






BIRDS










FISH



















Salmo salar Salmon




REPTILES



MAMMALS






Phocidae



Cetacea

Phocoena phocoena X


Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X

Fish

Petromyzontidae



Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Clupeidae

Alosa spp (V) X

Coregonidae


Mammals

CETACEA X

All species X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X


Dermochelyidae


Fish

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Coregonidae


Cyprinidae


Cyprinodontidae




Mammals
































Birds




































x





















Reptiles






Fish


























Invertebrates







































































































































4
















61 INTRODUCTION 97












74 D4 FOOD WEBS 107




82 TERMINOLOGY 117






6
















8















Assessment scales


Box 1












10




Habitats











Species







Pressure targets




12


















bull Cephalopods

bull Reptiles




14






Descriptor 1


































































16

Descriptor 2












Descriptor 4

Criterion Indicator



















Descriptor 6

Criterion Indicator


























18







dec






141






142


Habitat area




151




151




161





161




161 D6





161




161 D5 D6













163 D5 D6 D7 D8






151 16 62






151 16 62





16 624


dec




111





112 121





121




121





131









161 421





161 421


20


Dec





111





112





121 431



131 411




131 411




131





131 2





171


Dec








111










112








121 131







131 43





131 43


Dec




211



211


22

1 Background

















12 Policy context









24




































26









Agreement 2010-3)



















28















Loss

of

rang

e

Occasional trawling

Moderate trawling


infrastructure)

Intense trawling


Nutrient enrichment



Eutrophication

Cum

ulat

ive

pres

sure

s -

impa

ctD5D7

Hydrological change

D8

D6

Invasive

species

D2

Loss

of

rang

e

Occasional trawling

Moderate trawling


infrastructure)

Intense trawling


Nutrient enrichment



Eutrophication

Cum

ulat

ive

pres

sure

s -

impa

ctD5D7

Hydrological change

D8

D6

Invasive

species

D2





30





















32















34



















36






Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density
















Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density











Pressure


habitat community

and area


low density











habitat community

and area


low density
































38

























40























10(10)430


42


































44





















46





















48















50


411 Seabed habitats






















i ChannelLa Manche




v Kattegat




52



Northern North Sea


Kattegat



















(1) 1151













54





















56



























58









d Summary















60

Conclusions

General








Sediment habitats






















62



Physical damage















ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration



















64


ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration


15 Habitat extent

Habitat area (151)


Habitat area





15 Habitat extent

Habitat area (151)


Habitat area






15 Habitat extent


-



















ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration

(161) sufficient

























66


ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration




D5 D6 D7 D8




Using HD monitoring






151 16 62









151 16 62




Reference area





ParameterMetric1


Adviceconsideration











68













521 Cetaceans












70



Pressure targets







522 Seals











Pressure targets



523 Reptiles46




State targets




72




Fisheries bycatch






Marine litter




























74












ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4














76


ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4




None

















ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4




NA

12 Population size
















78


ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4







Current population


No single pressure











ParameterMetric1


Advice

consideration

Feasibility4






Decreasing trend






80

53 Birds


















Conclusions








Population Size







82













Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4








No single pressure








84


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4








No single pressure










Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4


12 Population size






No single pressure








86


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4


















No single pressure





Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4












Biological pressure











Biological pressure




88


Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4











No single pressure





Parameter Metric1



Feasibility4



90

































92



Conclusions

























94





Adviceconsideration

Feasibility4







No single pressure










No single pressure











12 Population size






No single pressure






Biological pressure









96



421 Large fish






No single pressure






No single pressure






No single pressure

















98






























100
















102



















ParameterMetric1


Pressure3

Adviceconsideration





Or



Not specified

Not specified



104



In development







106














108





Advice

consideration

Feasibility

















Advice

consideration

Feasibility








Fish


Fish


Fish


Fish


Fish

Removal of species

Fish



110



Advice

consideration

Feasibility






Removal of species




Mammalsreptiles


Mammalsreptiles


Mammalsreptiles

Current population

Mammalsreptiles


Fishing

Mammalsreptiles






Advice

consideration

Feasibility

differences


Decreasing trend



Fishing


Fish


Fish


Fish



Fish


Seabirds


Seabirds


Seabirds


Seabirds


No single pressure

Seabirds


112



Advice

consideration

Feasibility



options 75 and 90









No single pressure







Advice

consideration

Feasibility

















NA

114



Advice

consideration

Feasibility



NA




















116















Background






118

List of terms



lsquoCriterionrsquo





lsquoIndicatorrsquo
























120

lsquoIndexrsquo






lsquoBaselinersquo


lsquoPressurersquo














122



GES EcoQOs 11 21 22 31 32 33 34 35 41 51 52 71 81 9 (1-5)

1 Biodiversity 11

12

13

12 13 12

X X



4 Food webs 43 43 43 421


521-4

531-2




















124






H1





H2






H3


X







H4


X



H5


X



P1



126






P2












P3







P4





P5




Nutrient enrichment

P6



128


Organic enrichment

P7




Deoxygenation P8


X



L1





L2








D1









D3


X

130




D4


























Marine litter



O2


X



O3



132




X



O5


X



O6


X



X



B2


X







B3





B4





B5





B6



134























EUR 24334 EN-2010

136

























Habitats list



OSPAR Region II


OSPAR Region III





General



ReadMe


Sheet1


Sheet3

barbara
File Attachment

MSFD Species



OSPAR List


ASCOBANS

barbara
File Attachment

MSFD Species



OSPAR List


ASCOBANS

barbara
File Attachment

listed

not listed

barbara
File Attachment

138









Marine Birds
















Marine Mammals


140


Reptiles



141






Comment on baseline


Comment on target



Aii


1



Aii


1


NA 3


142



Comment on baseline


Comment on target


C





Aii


1






143


Cf Section 45 Birds





Comment on target





3




na










B)


3


144





Comment on baseline












1 or 2






145




Comment on baseline







2




1 or 2


146



Comment on baseline


relevant



1


147

OSPAR Commission V

Executive summary


Part I Principles

1 Background


12 Policy context







PART I Principles

2 Introduction

21 What is GES






















4 Habitats

41 Introduction

411 Seabed habitats
















5 Species




521 Cetaceans

522 Seals

523 Reptiles


53 Birds








61 Introduction












71 D1 Biodiversity



74 D4 Food webs






Mammals












Birds
























Fish






















































































































































Mammals
































Birds























































Reptiles






Fishes


































































































INVERTEBRATES






BIRDS










FISH



















Salmo salar Salmon




REPTILES



MAMMALS






Phocidae



Cetacea

Phocoena phocoena X


Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X

Fish

Petromyzontidae



Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Clupeidae

Alosa spp (V) X

Coregonidae


Mammals

CETACEA X

All species X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X


Dermochelyidae


Fish

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Coregonidae


Cyprinidae


Cyprinodontidae




Mammals





Birds



































































Reptiles


Fish




























































yes (IBTS)






















Invertebrates



















































































INVERTEBRATES






BIRDS










FISH



















Salmo salar Salmon




REPTILES



MAMMALS






Phocidae



Cetacea

Phocoena phocoena X


Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X

Fish

Petromyzontidae



Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Clupeidae

Alosa spp (V) X

Coregonidae


Mammals

CETACEA X

All species X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta X

Chelonia mydas X


Dermochelyidae


Fish

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio X

Coregonidae


Cyprinidae


Cyprinodontidae




Mammals
































Birds




































x





















Reptiles






Fish


























Invertebrates






































































































































Phocoena phocoena	Harbour porpoise

Tursiops truncatus	Common bottlenose dolphin	This list is a little odd - its not even taken from the ASCOBANS website ASCOBANS covers all species of odontocete except sperm whales However the focus has traditionally been on harbour porpoise bottlenose common white-beaked white-sideded Rissos and triped dolphins orca long finned pilot whale northern bottlenose whale and the beaked whales (Ziphiidae)

Delphinus delphis	Common dolphin

Lagenorhynchus acutus	Atlantic white-sided dolphin

Lagenorhynchus albirostris	White-beaked dolphin

Orcinus orca	Killer whale

Delphinapterus leucas	Beluga

Monodon monoceros	Narwhal

Mesoplodon europaeus	Gervais beaked whale

Mesoplodon bidens	Sowerbys beaked whale

Hyperoodon ampullatus	Northern bottlenose whale

Globicephala melas	Long-finned pilot whale

Anser albifrons flavirostris	Greenland white-fronted goose	Birds directive Annex I

Anser erythropus	Lesser White-fronted Goose	Birds directive Annex I

Anthus campestris	Tawny Pipit	Birds directive Annex I

Branta leucopsis	Barnacle Goose	Birds directive Annex I

Branta ruficollis	Red-breasted Goose	Birds directive Annex I

Bulweria bulwerii	Bulwers Petrel	Birds directive Annex I

Calidris alpina schinzii	Dunlin	Birds directive Annex I

Calonectris diomedea	Corys Shearwater	Birds directive Annex I

Charadrius alexandrinus	Kentish Plover	Birds directive Annex I

Charadrius morinellus	Eurasian Dotterel	Birds directive Annex I

Chlidonias hybridus	Whiskered Tern	Birds directive Annex I

Chlidonias niger	Black Tern	Birds directive Annex I

Cygnus bewickii	Bewicks Swan	Birds directive Annex I

Cygnus cygnus	Whooper Swan	Birds directive Annex I

Falco eleonorae	Eleonoras Falcon	Birds directive Annex I

Falco peregrinus	Peregrine Falcon	Birds directive Annex I

Fulica cristata	Red-knobbed Coot	Birds directive Annex I

Gavia arctica	Black-throated diver	Birds directive Annex I

Gavia immer	Great Northern diver	Birds directive Annex I

Gavia stellata	Red-throated diver	Birds directive Annex I

Gelochelidon nilotica (Sterna nilotica)	Gull-billed Tern	Birds directive Annex I

Grus grus	Common Crane	Birds directive Annex I

Haliaeetus albicilla	White-tailed Eagle	Birds directive Annex I

Himantopus himantopus	Black-winged Stilt	Birds directive Annex I

Hydrobates pelagicus	European Storm-petrel	Birds directive Annex I

Larus melanocephalus	Mediterranean Gull	Birds directive Annex I

Larus minutus	Little Gull	Birds directive Annex I

Limosa lapponica	Bar-tailed Godwit	Birds directive Annex I

Mergus albellus (Mergellus albellus)	Smew	Birds directive Annex I

Numenius tenuirostris	Slender-billed Curlew	Birds directive Annex I

Nyctea scandiaca	Snowy Owl	Birds directive Annex I

Oceanodroma castro	Madeiran Storm-petrel	Birds directive Annex I

Oceanodroma leucorhoa	Leachs Storm-petrel	Birds directive Annex I

Oxyura leucocephala	White-headed Duck	Birds directive Annex I

Pelagodroma marina	White-faced Storm-petrel	Birds directive Annex I

Pelecanus onocrotalus	Great White Pelican	Birds directive Annex I

Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii	European Shag	Birds directive Annex I

Phalacrocorax pygmeus	Pygmy Cormorant	Birds directive Annex I

Phalaropus lobatus	Red-necked Phalarope	Birds directive Annex I

Philomachus pugnax	Ruff	Birds directive Annex I

Pluvialis apricaria	Golden plover	Birds directive Annex I

Podiceps auritus	Slavonian grebe	Birds directive Annex I

Polysticta stelleri	Stellers eider	Birds directive Annex I

Porphyrio porphyrio	Purple gallinule	Birds directive Annex I

Pterodroma feae	Feas Petrel	Birds directive Annex I

Pterodroma madeira	Zinos Petrel	Birds directive Annex I

Puffinus assimilis	Little shearwater	Birds directive Annex I

Puffinus puffinus mauretanicus (Puffinus mauretanicus)	Balearic shearwater	Birds directive Annex I

Puffinus yelkouan	Yelkouan Shearwater	Birds directive Annex I

Recurvirostra avosetta	Pied avocet	Birds directive Annex I

Sterna albifrons	Little Tern	Birds directive Annex I

Sterna caspia	Caspian Tern	Birds directive Annex I

Sterna dougallii	Roseate tern	Birds directive Annex I

Sterna hirundo	Common tern	Birds directive Annex I

Sterna paradisaea	Arctic tern	Birds directive Annex I

Sterna sandvicensis	Sandwich tern	Birds directive Annex I

Tringa glareola	Wood Sandpiper	Birds directive Annex I

Uria aalge ibericus	Iberian guillemot	Birds directive Annex I

Xenus cinereus (Tringa cinerea)	Terek Sandpiper	Birds directive Annex I

SCIENTIFIC NAME	Common name

INVERTEBRATES

Arctica islandica	Ocean quahog

Megabalanus azoricus	Azorean barnacle

Nucella lapillus	Dog whelk

Ostrea edulis	Flat oyster

Patella ulyssiponensis aspera	Azorean limpet

BIRDS

Larus fuscus fuscus	Lesser black-backed gull

Pagophila eburnea	Ivory gull

Polysticta stelleri	Stellers eider

Puffinus assimilis baroli (auctincert)	Little shearwater

Puffinus mauretanicus	Balearic shearwater

Rissa tridactyla	Black-legged kittiwake

Sterna dougallii	Roseate tern

Uria aalge ndash Iberian population (synonyms Uria aalge albionis Uria aalge ibericus)	Iberian guillemot

Uria lomvia	Thick-billed murre

FISH

Acipenser sturio	Sturgeon

Alosa alosa	Allis shad

Anguilla anguilla	European eel

Centroscymnus coelolepis	Portuguese dogfish

Centrophorus granulosus	Gulper shark

Centrophorus squamosus	Leafscale gulper shark

Cetorhinus maximus	Basking shark

Coregonus lavaretus oxyrinchus (Linnaeligus 1758)	Houting

Dipturus batis (synonym Raja batis)	Common Skate

Raja montagui (synonym Dipturus montagui)	Spotted Ray

Gadus morhuandash populations in the OSPAR regions II and III[2]	Cod

Hippocampus guttulatus (synonym Hippocampus ramulosus)	Long-snouted seahorse

Hippocampus hippocampus	Short-snouted seahorse

Hoplostethus atlanticus	Orange roughy

Lamna nasus	Porbeagle

Petromyzon marinus	Sea lamprey

Raja clavata	Thornback skate ray

Rostroraja alba	White skate

Salmo salar	Salmon

Squalus acanthias	[Northeast Atlantic] spurdog

Squatina squatina	Angel shark

Thunnus thynnus	Bluefin tuna

REPTILES

Caretta caretta		Loggerhead turtle

Dermochelys coriacea		Leatherback turtle

MAMMALS

Balaena mysticetus		Bowhead whale

Balaenoptera musculus		Blue whale

Eubalaena glacialis		Northern right whale

Phocoena phocoena		Harbour porpoise

Scientific Name	Annex II		Annex IV

Phocidae

Halichoerus grypus (V)	X

Phoca vitulina (V)	X

Cetacea

Phocoena phocoena	X

Tursiops truncatus	X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta	X

Chelonia mydas	X

Fish

Petromyzontidae

Lampetra fluviatilis (V) (except the Finnish and Swedish populations)	X

Petromyzon marinus (o) (except the Swedish populations)	X

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio	X

Clupeidae

Alosa spp (V)	X

Coregonidae

Coregonus oxyrhynchus (anadromous populations in certain sectors of the North Sea)	X

Mammals

CETACEA		X

All species		X

Reptiles

Cheloniidae

Caretta caretta		X

Chelonia mydas		X

Eretmochelys imbricata		X

Dermochelyidae

Dermochelys coriacea		X

Fish

Acipenseridae

Acipenser sturio		X

Coregonidae

Coregonus oxyrhynchus (anadromous populations in certain sectors of the North Sea except the Finnish populations)		X

Cyprinidae

Anaecypris hispanica		X

Cyprinodontidae

Valencia hispanica		X

MSFD biodiversity advice manual - Europa

Documents

Transcript of MSFD biodiversity advice manual - Europa

ReadMe

Sheet1

Sheet3

MSFD Species

Habitats Directive Annex II+IV

OSPAR List

Birds directive Annex I

ASCOBANS

MSFD Species

Habitats Directive Annex II+IV

OSPAR List

Birds directive Annex I

ASCOBANS

listed

not listed

ReadMe

Sheet1

Sheet3

MSFD Species

Habitats Directive Annex II+IV

OSPAR List

Birds directive Annex I

ASCOBANS

MSFD Species

Habitats Directive Annex II+IV

OSPAR List

Birds directive Annex I

ASCOBANS

listed

not listed

ReadMe

Sheet1

Sheet3

MSFD Species

Habitats Directive Annex II+IV

OSPAR List

Birds directive Annex I

ASCOBANS

MSFD Species

Habitats Directive Annex II+IV

OSPAR List

Birds directive Annex I

ASCOBANS

listed

not listed